The Ohio Brake & Cluth Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

Iilt. OO1110 BRAKF & ( I CH CORPORATION
The Ohio Brake & Clutch Corporation and Truck
I)risers IAcal 407. affiliated with Ihe International
Brotherhood of Teamsters ChaHffeurs, Warehouse-
nien and Helpers of America. Case 8 ('A 11433
August 9. 1979
I)DFCISION ANI) ORDER
By MEMlRS PNI I I.(), Mt 'RPIiY AND) TRI. SI)AI
On October 16. 1978, Administrative law Judge
John P. on Rohr issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding.' hereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings. findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order. as modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found, inter alia,
and we agree. that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
as amended, by failing and refusing to bargain with
the Union concerning the decision to relocate its
Cleveland operations and the effects thereof on unit
employees. To remedy these violations he recom-
mended, inter alia, that Respondent be ordered to
make whole each of the employees who were termi-
nated by the closing of the Cleveland facility for any
loss of wages from October 24, 1977. the date that
Respondent closed its facility, until such date as Re-
spondent offers the Union an opportunity to bargain
over the decision to relocate and the effects thereof on
unit employees.' We agree that a bargaining order is
'On November 12. 1978. the Administrative Law Judge issued an "tr-
rata" to his Decision.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibiliy findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not I,, oerrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credihilits unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convlces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr Hall Producir, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(19501, enfd 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefulls examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
Member Penello does not rely on the Administrative Law Judge's dscus-
sion of' Roqal Tp vtreer C(omiun,m a Division of Liron Business Si ienms. Inc.
a Subsidiar o l.itt.n Indurrti, Inc.. and Li.ton Induwries. I ., 209 NLRB
1006 1974). in finding that Respondent violated Sec 8aH~)5 and ( I ) of the
Act by tailing to bargain over the decision to close its (leseland facilit
In his recommended Order and in his notice. the dminsltrative aw
Judge properly orders Respondent Io bargain with the niion concerning the
decision to close as well as the effects thereof iHowever, his section entitled
"The Remedy" inadvertently omits any reference to hargainling over the
decision to close. Accordingls, we hereby amend the Administrative Law
Judge's proposed remedy to provide that Respondent be ordered. nter lia,
to bargain with the nion concerning its decision to close its (leveland
facility as well as the effects thereof on unit emploees
appropriate. We also agree with the provision of a
hackpa 3 award effective as ol'()ctober 24. 1977 the
date Respondent violated the Act hb closing its
('leveland facility without bargainining with the Inion
over the decision to close and the eft'fects thereof.
However. rather than merely directing Respondent to
offer to bargain with the Union as recommended bh
the Administrative Law Judge. we believe Respon-
dent should be required to satisfy its as et unfulfilled
statutory obligation bh at least bargaining to a bona
fide impasse. should bargaining be timely requested
by the Union. Thus. effectuation of, the A.\cl's policies
requires that employees whose statutory rights have
been invaded by reason of' Responldellt's Lulafiull
unilateral action and who may have suffered losses in
consequence thereof be reimbursed for such losses
until such time as Respondent remedies its violation
by doing what it should have done in the first place. 4
Accordingly, to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
we shall accompany a bargaining order with a back-
pay requirement designed to make whole the emplo\-
ees for losses suffered as a result of the violation, in
the manner established by the Board in If. It o/-
worth Conlanyav, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). with interest to
be computed in the manner set forth in Flrida St'ce/
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).' Thus. Respon-
dent shall pay its displaced employees backpa_ at the
rate of their normal wages when last in Respondent's
employ from on or about October 24. 1977. the date
that Respondent closed its Cleveland facilith and ter-
minated its employees, until the occurrence of the
earliest of the following conditions: ( 1 ) the date that
Respondent bargains to agreement with the Union on
those subjects pertaining to the decision to close its
Cleveland facility and the effects of the closing on
unit employees: (2) the parties reach a bona fide im-
passe in bargaining: (3) the failure of the lUnion to
request bargaining within 5 days of issuance of the
Decision and Order or to commence negotiations
within 5 days of Respondent's notice of its desire to
bargain with the Union; or (4) the subsequent failure
of the Union to bargain in good faith.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National l.abor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge. as moditied be-
low. and hereby orders that the Respondent. The
Ohio Brake & Clutch Corporation, Copley., Ohio, its
officers, agents. successors. and assigns, shall take the
P B Mutrir ,fIlsr Transportairnl. in , 226 N RI.RB 1125 197tl: IinrT
Dt it Sitr,, In( , 147 NlRB 788 (19641
'See, generalls. Isis Plumbin g & lheating (,. 138 NI.RB 716 1962
244 NLRB No. 5
3S
DI)6(ISIONS ()F NAIlONAI. lABOR RFLA.AIIONS BOARD
action set forth in the said recolmiended Order. :s so
modified:
1. Substitute the tllolhwing for paragraph 2(b) of
the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order:
"(b) After bargaining with the Union. oflfer the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit employment at the
Copley. Ohio. facility. and pay the terminated em-
ployees their normal wages in the manner and for the
period set forth in this Decision."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative aw Judge.
APPEND)IX
No1 I(EI To EMPIOYEES
PosIrI) BY ORDER OF IlE
NAlIO()NAI I.ABOR REI.AIIONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
WtE WIL. NOt bargain unilaterally with the
employees in the appropriate unit without first
bargaining with Truck Drivers Local 407, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhoood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America.
WE WIl. NOT fail or refuse to bargain in good
faith with the above-named Union with respect
to the Company's decision to close the Cleveland
facility on October 24, 1977. and with respect to
the effect of that decision on the employees in
the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOI close or relocate any company
facility without adequate prior notice to, and
bargaining with, the Union representing the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit concerning the
decision to close or relocate the facility and the
effects on the employees involved.
W wNIl. NOI in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee
in the exercise of his rights under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE Wil.,., upon request, bargain in good faith
with the above-named Union with respect to the
Company's decision to close and relocate the
Cleveland facility on October 24, 1977, and with
respect to the effect of that decision on the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. The appropriate
unit is:
All office clerical employees and inside sales
employees at the Respondent's Cleveland,
Ohio. facility, excluding all truckdrivers and
dockmen, and professional employees, guards
and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
WEI wii.t, after bargaining with the above-
named Union. offer the employees in the appro-
priate unit employment at our CopleN. Ohio. fa-
cility.
WE: witi. make whole the employees in the
appropriate unit who were employed at the
Cleveland. Ohio. facility for their normal wages
and benefits in the manner and for the period
required by the Decision and Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
Tin O1o BRAKIE & ('I.I'1(1 C()RI'()RA II(N
D)ECISION
SIXIEIMtN I ! 1111 C\Sl
JOIN P, v\ON RoIIR Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge filed on October 14, 1977, the General Counsel of'
the National abor Relations Board, by the Regional Di-
rector fbr Region 8, issued a complaint against The Ohio
Brake & Clutch Corporation, herein called Respondent or
the Company, alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices in violation o Section 8(a) I) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act. as amended. herein called
the Act. Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations
of unlawful conduct in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held bef'ore mc in Ak-
ron. Ohio, on March 14, 1978. Briefs were received from the
General Counsel and Respondent on April 28. 1978. and
they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I hereby make the fillowing:
FINDIN(S ()F FA( I
1. I111: Bt SINISS ()0 RSPONDN I
Respondent is an Ohio corporation with its principal of-
fice and place of' business located in Cople, Ohio, where it
is engaged in the nonretail purchase. storage, and sale of
automobile parts. During the year preceding the hearing
herein. Respondent received materials and supplies valued
in excess of $50.000 at its Copley. Ohio. facility from points
and places located outside the State of Ohio. I find that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. ltE I.ABOR ORGANIZAIION INVO(\t I)
Truck Drivers Local 407. affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and
Helpers of' America, the Charging Party herein, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ilI. iltl. UNFAIR I.ABOR PRA( II( 1IS
A. The Issue
The basic issue in this case is whether Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)( 1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally dis-
continuing operations at its Cleveland, Ohio. facilits and
relocating and moving these operations to its ('ople3. Ohio.
36
THF OHIO BRAKE & CLUTCH CORPORATION
facility without bargaining with the 1Union concerning the
decision to close and relocate the ('leveland operations and
the effects thereof upon the employees.
B. The Flls
On or about April 22. 1977, the Union was certified bh
the Board as the exclusive bargaining agent for Respon-
dent's employees in a unit composed of all office clerical
employees and inside sales employees at Respondent's
Cleveland. Ohio. facility, excluding all truckdrivers and
dockmen and professional employees. guards. and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act. 'There were four employees in the
unit at all times material hereto.
As related more fully hereinafter, the Company moved
from its Cleveland. Ohio. facility to a facility in Copley,
Ohio, on or about November . 1977. Prior thereto, and
subsequent to the Union's certification, the parties held
three negotiating meetings. These took place on August 18.
September 20. and October 7. 1977. I shall state at the out-
set that although the General Counsel appears to contend
that even apart from the subject of relocating. Respondent
did not bargain in good faith, in my view the record does
not support any contention that Respondent engaged in
surface bargaining as to the other subjects of collective bar-
gaining. Thus, the record reflects that during these meetings
Respondent agreed to a number of the Union's proposals
and, at the September 20 meeting. offered the Union a 14-
cent hourly wage increase. In any event. Respondent's final
offer, including its wage proposal. was rejected by the
Union at a union meeting held on September 27, 1977. The
Union so advised Respondent by telegram dated October 3,
1977.
Respondent operated out of leased facilities in Cleveland,
Ohio, for approximately 5 years. The lease expired on Janu-
ary 1, 1977. at which time Respondent notified the building
manager that it intended to move. However, and although
the employees were told to help look for another location.
the Company remained at the Cleveland location on a
month-to-month lease.
The first indication of some pending development con-
cerning a move was observed by Michael Evans, an inside
salesman. Thus, Evans testified without contradiction that
on September 24 or 25 he noticed that a workbench had
been removed from the shop. Then, over the weekend of
October I and 2, Evans observed that an adding machine, a
typewriter, and two desks used by the outside salesmen had
been removed from the Cleveland facility. On Monday, Oc-
tober 3, Evans reported this to Richard Sanzo, an organizer
for the Union, and later that week he also reported the
matter to John Tanski, president of the Local Union.
Sanzo testified that just prior to the October 7 bargaining
meeting he met William Bender, who is Respondent's secre-
tary and also an attorney, and Harvey Rector, a labor con-
sultant who represents Respondent, in the hallway and
went out to have a cup of coffee with them. During the
ensuing conversation Sanzo stated that he had heard the
Company had an operation in Copley and was contemplat-
ing moving there. According to Sanzo, the reply was that
the Company did have an operation in Copley but that it
was not moving out of the Cleveland area.
Fhe subject was brought up again a little later, during the
actual bargaining session. Thus, after spending some time
on negotiations. Sanzo again raised the question concerning
a possible move to ('ople. As testified to b hboth Sanlzo
and Bender, Rector at this point stated that Respondent's
representatives were there to negotiate a contract for the
Cleveland operation and that, with reference to ('oples.
"any other operation was not a subject to he discussed."'
Robert Given. Respondent's vice president. testified that at
some point during the meeting Rector also stated that it
Respondent decided to move to Cople>. "we would do
whatever we could according to law and order and that
everyone would be notified as such" and that "the) Ithe
employees] would be offered a job according to lark and the
rules and regulations."
About 1:30 p.m. on October 12. 1977. I.eif S. Hansen
summoned the four unit employees to a meeting in the of-
fice of the Cleveland facilit> and introduced them to Rec-
tor. Rector thereupon proceeded to announice that the
Cleveland facility would be closed and that the operations
would be conducted onl, at the Coplei, facility. lte \senl on
to advise that the employees would be given an opportunit
to transfer to Copley. where they would be given the same
seniority and fringe benefits, but that the! ould receive
the same wage rates that prevailed at the Akron (ople)
area.? Although Given and Rector testified that money was
not mentioned. Evans and employee George Karnavos
credibly testified that when the wage rate was questioned.
the answer was that the rate at Copley would be less than
the rate they were receiving at Cleveland.'
Rector testified that he sought to inform the Union of
Respondent's decision to relocate the Cleveland operation
to Copley just prior to the above meeting with the emplo'-
ees on October 12. Thus, Rector testified that he called the
union hall and asked to speak to Tanski but was informed
that Tanski was out. He said he then spoke to anski's
secretary, a Miss Vale, and left a message that she would
"tell him [Tanskil that the Company had decided to move
to Copley and that I would follow it up with a letter."'
By letter dated October 13. 1977. Rector advised the
Union as folloows:
Dear Mr. Tanski:
This will confirm my telephone conversation with ,our
secretary October 12. 1977, concerning phasing out our
operation in Cleveland.
Please be advised that Ohio Brake & Clutch Corpora-
tion has decided to phase out and combine the Cleve-
land operations with the Akron installation as of No-
'The quotation is from the testimony of Bender.
Cope) is within the Akron. Ohio. area.
3 With further reference to the matter of wages, it is noted that Given
testified as follows:
Q. You testified that at the October 12 meeting that no mention was
made of the exact wages at Akron [Copley], but that the) [the Cleveland
employeesl would be paid the going rate. Could you explain what that
means?
A. It means we were not sure just what everyone was getting. the
rates down in Akron. and whatever we could hire people for in Akron.
that is what they would be hired for or transferred. I should say
'Although Tanski testified that he never received this message, I credit
Rector's testimony that he did make the call as related above.
37
I)[D('ISIONS OF NA IONAL LABOR R.AIIONS BOARI)
vember 1, 1977. Therefore, we hereby offer each of our
Cleveland employees a position at the going rate in
Akron with full seniority and fringe benefits.
/s/ Harvey B. Rector
By letter of the same date, October 13. 1977, Rector ad-
vised the employees as follows:'
Dear Michael Evans:
We regret to inform you that we are phasing out our
Cleveland operation and combining it with our Akron
installation effective November I. 1977. Therefore, we
hereby offer you a position at the Arkon [sic] branch at
the going rate in that area without loss of seniority or
fringe benefits.
We would like your reply by October 19. 1977. Please
mail your decision to the Arkon [sicl address:
/s/ Leif S. Hansen
None of the employees chose to accept a position at the
Copley facility. However, at the request of the employees.
Respondent granted them I week's severance pay.
The Cleveland facility was finally closed on or about Oc-
tober 24, 1977, at which time the employees removed the
remaining equipment and loaded it on a truck.
C. Additional Facts. (Conclusions
Although the testimony of Respondent's officials Given
and Hansen was conflicting and uncertain as to just when
the decision was made to relocate the Cleveland facility.
from their entire testimony on the subject it is clear, and I
find, that this decision was reached at least several days
prior to the announcement of the move to the employees on
October 12. Indeed, in view of the fact that Respondent
started moving equipment out of its plant as early as Sep-
tember 25 and again on October I or 2, it must be reason-
ably assumed that Respondent contemplated the move
even earlier.
From the foregoing it is clear that Respondent had ample
time to notify the Union and bargain with it concerning the
relocation of the Cleveland facility prior to its unilateral
announcement to the employees that the decision had been
made. Indeed, and assuming some economic justification
for the move, Respondent does not claim that it was an
emergency situation which required that the move be made
with any particular haste. Thus, in testifying to the reason
for the move. Given explained that it was "because we had
such very, very good facilities and it was working out just
beautiful, and we would be able to handle anything."
Apart from Respondent's legal defense with respect to its
refusal to bargain with the Union concerning the decision to
relocate the plant, which is discussed below. Respondent. as
far as I can determine, has offered no defense or explana-
tion concerning its refusal to bargain over the effects of its
decision to relocate. Surely its letter of October 13, 1977, to
the Union cannot in any respect be regarded as an offer to
bargain with the Union over the move, for this was merely
All employees received the same letter.
notice to the Union that it had "decided to phase out . . .
the ('leveland operations." i.e., a classical case of a tnil ac-
compli. Nor can Respondent in any respect be regarded as
having fulfilled its bargaining obligation bh reason oft Rec-
tor's belated attempt to reach Tanski b telephone just
prior to his announcement of the move to the employees on
October 12. for it is clear from the announcement itself that
the decision had already been made. Indeed. with respect to
Respondent's meeting with the employees on October 12, at
which time it made the announcement and at the same time
offlered them jobs at the C'opley facility, this case is on all
fours with Ral T7pcwriting ('omlpant. Dinif tm ol I.itton
Business Svem. Ic., et al.. 209 N L RB 100()6 (1974).
wherein the Board found that the emploer there. under
similar circumnstances, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of
the Act by offering its employees employment at another
location without notice to or consultation with the union. I
find, therefore, that Respondent, by engaging in similar uni-
lateral conduct regarding its employees. violated Section
8(a)(5) and ( I of the Act.
It is well settled that the Act requires an employer to
bargain with respect to the effect of the closing or relocation
of a plant on the unit employees. It is true, as several cases
cited by Respondent indicate, that sme of the circuit
courts of appeals have taken the position that an employer
need not bargain concerning a decision to discontinue op-
erations." However, the Board has adhered to the position.
which has been upheld by other circuit courts, that the de-
cision to discontinue operations or to relocate a plant is also
a subject of mandatory bargaining.'
Accordingly, and since the facts in this case are clear that
Respondent did not bargain with the Union with regard to
the decision and the effects on unit employees concerning
the closing and relocating of' its Cleveland facility. I find
that by such conduct Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and ( I) of' the Act.
1V. Iilt: 1-11-' (I) 1111 - INI-AIR ABOR P'RA('II IS IU'(ON
( OMNMfR(
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent described in section I,. above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
6 Although the ollowing cases stand up for this proposition, hey d not
necessarily encompass the same circumstances shown here, i e.. the reloca-
tion of the C(leveland plant as well as its closing N L.R B s. R,,i-a Pklaing
and Polishing Co., Inc., 350 F.2d 191 (3d Cir 1965): A I..R B s Adamii
Dair., Inc., 350 F.2d 108 (8th Cir. 1965). cert. denied 382 US 101 I (1966)1
N.I..R B v. Transmarine Nasigation Corporation and itl subxsdilnr, Intirna
tional Terminals, Inc. 380 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1967): and V, LR B v Thomlp-
son Transport, Inc., 406 F.2d 698 (IOth Cir. 1969): Cf. also N.I..R.B, s Ditl
Ohio Epresi ('ompanrt, 409 F.2d 10 (6th Cir. 1969).
I also have considered other cases cited hy Respondent. but ind Ihem to
be factually or legally inapposite.
7 Burroughs Corporation, 214 N.RB 571 (1974): Stone & Thomnas, 221
Nl.RB 573 1975): Iniernational Haester (ompanv. 227 NLRB 85 1976):
P. B. Mutne Motor Transportation, Inc., 226 NLRB 1325 (1976): Inerna
tional Ladies' Garment Workers Union, 4 FL. ('O lfclaugh/i aniu/lal ur-
ing Corporalion) 463 F.2d 907 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert denied 392 L S. 922
(1968);V I. R B v. Wnn-Diie Store,. Inc, 361 F 2d 51 51517 (5th ir.
1966). cert denied 385 U.S. 935 1966).
38
THE OHIO BRAKE & ('I.I(CtI CORPORATION
ORDER"'
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(5) and I ) of
the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Under the circumstances of this case, I shall not recom-
mend that Respondent be required to resume its operation
at Cleveland, Ohio.'
The major impact of Respondent's violation of the Act
has been on the rights of the employees affected by the
closing of the Cleveland facility. While it is true that Re-
spondent did offer the employees jobs at the C'oplev facility.
I have found that the offer involved a reduction of their
wages. Moreover, Respondent has prevented the Union
from adequately representing them in bargaining concern-
ing the effects of its actions in closing and relocating the
Cleveland facility. Accordingly. I find that Respondent's
offer was inadequate and that the employees were not
bound to accept or reject it. To remedy the situation. I shall
recommend that Respondent shall make whole each of the
employees in the appropriate unit who were terminated by
the closing of the Cleveland facility from on or about Octo-
ber 24, 1977, until such time as Respondent has given the
Union an opportunity to bargain over the effects of this
action on the unit employees and then made the employees
a new offer of employment at the Copley facility, for wages
and benefits lost, in the manner prescribed by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Compan', 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and with
interest thereon computed in the manner and amount pre-
scribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).9
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material to this proceeding, the Union has
been and continues to be the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit
within the meaning of Section 9(a) and (b) of the Act:
All clerical employees and inside sales employees at
Respondent's former Cleveland, Ohio, facility., exclud-
ing all truckdrivers and dockmen, and all professional
employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the
Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct described in section IIIl.
above, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) and
(5) of the Act.
5. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
I Nor does the General Counsel request any such remedy.
'See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heaing Co. 138 NLRB 716(1962). Bene-
fits already paid to the employees shall be taken into account at the compli-
ance stage of this proceeding.
'The Respondent, The Ohio Brake & Clutch (Corporalion
C(ople, Ohio. its officers. agents. successors. and aissigns.
shall:
1. ('ease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collecti el_ in good
faith with Truck Drivers Local 407. affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. as the exclusise repre-
sentatives of its employees in the appropriate unit set fortil
below concerning the decision to close and relocate the
C(leveland facilit N and the effects of the discontinuance of
the Cleveland facility on such employees. The apropriate
unit is:
All office clerical employees and inside sales employees
at Respondent's former Cleveland. Ohio, facility. ex-
cluding all truckdrivers and dockmen, and prolessional
employees, guards and supervisors, as detined in the
Act.
(hb) Unilaterally closing or relocating ans of its facilities
without prior notice to and bargaining with the ulnion con-
cerning the decision to close and relocate such lhcility and
its effects of the employees involved.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with. re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which will effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request. bargain in good faith with the aboe-
named Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit set forth above with
respect to the decision to close the Cleveland facilit> and to
relocate it at Copley and the effects of the decision on unit
employees.
(b) After bargaining with the Union. offer the employees
in the appropriate unit employment at the Copley. Ohio.
facility, and make whole the employees who were termi-
nated on or about October 24. 1977. for wages and benefits
lost, in the manner and for the period set forth in the proi-
sions of the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Mail to the last known addresses of all employees in
the appropriate unit copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice. on forms pros ided bxh
the Regional Director for Region 23. after being dulb
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall
be mailed to said employees within 3 days after the! are
received.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23. in writ-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
B' In the event no exceptions are filed as proided bh Sec 102 46 oI the
Rules and Regulaiions of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 1248
of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted h the Board and become It,
findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections therei shall hbe deemed
waived for all purposes
1 In the event this Order is enforced b a Judgment ol a nled Si.ale
Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Poled b Order of the
National Labtxr Relations Board" shall read "Posied Pursuanl t . JudgmentI
of the nited States Court of Appeals FEnforcing an Order ot the N.at onal
.abor Relations Board"
V. TttE RMEI)Y
39