Universal Oil Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 657 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

UOP NORPLEX DIVISION OF UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS
UOP Norplex Division of Universal Oil Products
Company and Lodge 1616, International
Association of,Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2710 ,
November 21, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On September 4, 1969, Trial Examiner John P.
von Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled
`proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and 'recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in,the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief. '
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations' of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein,` and orders that the Respondent,
UOP Norplex Division of Universal Oil Products
Company, Black River Falls, Wisconsin, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the, Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as so modified.
in connection with pars 2(b) and 2(c) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as adopted, it is to be noted that, if the number of
substantially equivalent vacant positions, together with vacancies created
by dismissals (if necessary) of any persons hired on or after November 7,
1968, are insufficient to permit reinstatement of all the unfair labor
practice strikers, the Respondent shall offer reinstatement to the remaining
strikers whenever a vacancy does occur in the future, and in the event
Respondent fails to make such offer in a timely fashion, such strikers shall
be made whole for losses from the date a vacancy occurs until the date of
reinstatement See The Laidlaw Corporation, 171 NLRB No 175
in the event that the Board's Order be enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words, "a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order" in the notice
657
Delete from end of paragraph 2(b) the words
"who were not in the Respondent's employ on that
date," and change the comma to a period after
" 1968."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P VON ROHR, Trial Examiner. Upon a charge,
duly filed, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 18
(Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued a complaint on March
4, 1969,, against UOP Norplex Division of Universal Oil
Products Company, herein called the Respondent or the
Company, alleging that it engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
called the Act The Respondent's answer denies the
allegation of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial
Examiner in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, on April, 10,
1969 All parties were represented by counsel and were
afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and from the
Respondent and they have been carefully considered
Upon the entire, record in .this case, and from my
observation of the"witnesses, I hereby.make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Delaware corporation having a
plant and place of business at Black River Falls,
Wisconsin and LaCrosse , Wisconsin The sole facility
involved ' in this proceeding is its plant at Black River
Falls, Wisconsin , where it is engaged in the manufacture
of plastic parts for the automotive , electronics and other
industries During the year preceding the hearing herein,
the Respondent sold and shipped goods manufactured at
its Black River Falls plant valued in excess of $1 million
to points and locations outside of the State of Wisconsin.
The Respondent concedes , and I find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the
Act
It THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Lodge 1616, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act -
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that since on or about November
7, 1968, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union
in good faith in that it insisted, as a condition precedent
to entering into a collective-bargaining agreement, that the
Union rescind or agree not to enforce fines or other
discipline against union members who returned to work
during the period of a strike which began on May 14,
1968
179 NLRB No. I11
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A The Facts
Pursuant to certification by the Board on December 18,
1958, (Case 18-RC-3813), the Respondent has recognized
the Union as the collective-bargaining agent for its
employees in the following unit which I find to be
appropriate '
All hour rated production employees employed at the
Black River Falls, Wisconsin Plant, excluding office
and clerical employees, engineers , foremen, supervisors
and guards as defined under the Act.
It appears that Respondent enjoyed a harmonious
relationship with the Union until the dispute involved
herein The last contract between the parties was entered
into on June 19, 1965, with an expiration date of March
31, 1968. In' about March -1967, the parties undertook
brief negotiations toward extension and modification of
the existing contract These efforts proved unsuccessful
and the parties thereupon agreed to wait until the normal
notice date.
Following timely notice by the Union, formal contract
negotiations began on February 6, 1968 2 Following a
series of collective-bargaining meetings, the Union
engaged in an economic strike commencing on May 14. It
is undisputed that at this time 92' employees' were
employed in the unit, of whom 54 went out on strike
During the period between approximately June 15 and
August 26, 13 striking employees crossed the picket line
and returned to work at Respondent's-plant As indicated
more fully hereinafter, pursuant to disciplinary action
taken by the Union, these employees were each fined
approximately $500
A collective-bargaining meeting, which involved
utilization of the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service,
was held on November 7, 1968 ' At this meeting the
Respondent advised the Mediator that any contract must
include agreement that the Union would withdraw the
fines imposed on the employees- who crossed the picket
line and returned to work ° The Mediator conveyed this to
the Union at a meeting held on the following day The
Union responded that it would not withdraw the fines At
this meeting the Respondent also offered a 17-point
contract proposal to the Union, the 17th of which stated .
Management insists upon ' protection from' fines for
those employees who accepted the Company's invitation
to return to work during the strike, and, who now have
had fines levied against them by the local union
.
Near the conclusion of a bargaining meeting held on
November 20, Respondent advised the Union that any
agreement would be predicated on the Union's withdrawal
of any disciplinary action against employees who had
crossed the picket line and returned to work 5 The Union
advised that it would not drop the fines, at the same time
manifesting its-position that this was an internal affair of
the Union.
'The employer designated at this time was ,Norplex Fabricators, Inc ,
Respondent's predecessor Respondent , as successor employer (in about
1965), continued to recognize the Union
'Unless otherwise indicated , all dates hereinafter refer to the year 1968
'Except for the matter of fines, there is no contention that Respondent
did not bargain in good faith concerning wages , hours, working conditions,
and other mandatory subjects of collective bargaining I therefore do not
deem it necessary to discuss the progress of negotiations pertaining to these
subjects during the various collective - bargaining meetings , but rather shall
restrict this discussion to the position taken by the parties with respect to
the subject of the Union ' s disciplinary fines
'This is undisputed and conceded in Respondent ' s brief
'Ibid
The final bargaining meeting was held on March 7,
1969. As 'indicated in a memoranda concerning this
meeting prepared by Respondent's attorney,- the three
principal unresolved issues ' remaining at this time were (a)
the term of the contract, (b) wages; and (c) the demand of
the Company that the Union withdraw the fines. It is
undisputed that at this meeting the Company continued to
insist that the fines be withdrawn and that the Union
adhered to its initial position that this was an internal
affair of the Union and that it would not bargain over the
matter ° The meeting ended without agreement
B Additional Facts, Concluding Findings
Although Respondent's answer admits the complaint's
allegation (par 7 thereof) that "since about December 18,
1958 the Union has been the certified and the recognized
collective-bargaining representative of the employees of
the Respondent," near the conclusion of the hearing
Respondent's counsel took the position that the'Union no
longer represented a majority of the employees ' I think
this matter may be disposed of by 'reference to the
undisputed fact that on October 21, 1968, the Regional
Director approved a settlement agreement wherein
Respondent agreed, inter alia, that it would bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of employees in the heretofore described appropriate unit.'
It is well settled that an employer who enters into a
settlement agreement of this kind is under obligation to
honor the agreement for a reasonable time after its
execution without questioning the representative status of
the Union.' And where the parties had not reached an
impasse in negotiations, 6 months has not been held to be
"a reasonable time " N J MacDonald & Sons, Inc , 155
NLRB 71 Under all-the circumstances of this case, I find
that a reasonable time had not elapsed and that the
Union, through the auspices of the General Counsel, was
not bound to. establish the Union's majority as a fact11
prerequisite to any finding of a refusal to bargain here
The particular circumstances to which I refer include (1)
Respondent's admission in its answer that the Union was
'It may be noted that the complaint involved herein had been served on
Respondent a day or two prior to the March 7 meeting Concerning this
and the ' subject of the union fines Respondent ' s memoranda of the March
7 meeting states
The items still outstanding can easily be resolved with regard to those
concerning the language Management feels that it and the Union are
fairly close on wages and the terms of the'agreement But the question
of fines is keeping them far apart, charges filed by the Union have
resulted in a Complaint being issued by the National Labor Relations
Board and a hearing is scheduled for April 10 But the matter will not
be 'settled there Management feels that this matter is negotiable, at this
point Management does not know who is right and who is wrong, and
only the Board and Courts will resolve the issue [Emphasis supplied I
'In support of this contention Respondent points out that , according to
the unrefuted testimony of Donald Berry , the industrial relations manager,
on November 7, 1968, there were 112 production and maintenance
employees employed in the plant, while 41 employees remained outside on
strike Berry testified that as of April 9, 1969, there were 119 in the plant
and 41 outside
'in this connection , the Respondent advised the Union on August 16,
1968, that it no longer represented a majority ,' that it proposed to petition
for an election, and that it was withdrawing , its latest proposed contract
offer ' In the subsequent above-mentioned Settlement Agreement,
Respondent agreed to bargain collectively by furnishing the Union certain
specified information and also to offer reinstatement to the striking
employees upon their application The agreement further provided for
residual 8 (a)(1) relief (Case 18-CA-2667 )
'Poole 'Foundry and Machine Company, 95 NLRB 34, enfd 192 F 2d,
740 (C A 4 ), cert denied 342 U S 954
UOP NORPLEX DIVISION OF UNIVERSAL OILPRODUCTS 659
the certified and recognized bargaining representative, (2)
the fact that Respondent continued to recognize the Union
and to bargain with it (or was to be prepared to bargain
with it) until the time of the hearing herein, provided that
the Union withdraw the fines,- and (3) the fact that
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, as
hereinafter found, beginning on November 7, 1968, this
approximately only 2 weeks after entering into the
aforementioned settlement agreement. Accordingly, I find
that the Union is and has been the exclusive representative
of the employees in the aforementioned appropriate unit
at all times material hereto."
Turning to the merits of the case, from the foregoing
recital of facts it is clear, and I find, that since November
7, 1968, the Respondent at all times insisted that the
Union withdraw the fines which it had imposed upon the
13 employee-members who crossed the picket line and
returned to work as a condition to entering into a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union The
General Counsel relies upon the Board's decision in Allan
Bradley Company': wherein the Board held that an
employer's proposal to limit a union's authority to
discipline or fine its members for exercising their statutory
right to refrain from engaging in strikes or other
concerted activity was not a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining Although the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Allan Bradley
case," the General Counsel correctly points out that in
Local 283, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America [Wisconsin Motor
Corporation] and Allan Scofield, 145 NLRB 1097, the
Board stated that it "does not acquiesce" in the Court's
decision 11 Accordingly it appearing that the Board has not
changed its view as thus expressed in the Allan Bradley
case, as Trial Examiner I am bound to follow the Board's
decision therein The subject of union fines having been
held not to be a mandatory subject of collective
bargaining, I find that Respondent, by conditioning the
execution of a contract upon the dropping of the fines,
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and
derivatively, Section 8(a)(1) thereof 11 Although it is clear
that the strike began as an economic strike, I am
constrained to further find, as alleged in the complaint,
that the foregoing unfair labor practices tended to prolong
the strike and therefore converted the strike into an unfair
labor practice' strike.' 6 Thus, as heretofore noted,
,Respondent itself concedes that as of March 7, 1968,
"management feels that it and the Union are fairly close
oh wages and the terms of the agreement - but the
question of fines is keeping them far apart
"Thus, on March 24 or 25 Respondent sent a letter to the Mediator
indicating that it was still willing to meet with the Union Indeed,
Respondent ' s counsel (and also its negotiator ) stated during the instant
hearing " We had hoped right up until 9 30 this morning that there still
would be a resolution, but after 9 30 this morning there obviously can be
no resolution if you must follow the rulings of the National Labor
Relations Board "
"Cf Aero Engineering Corporation , 177 NLRB No 31
"127 NLRB 44
"Allan Bradlev v NLRB , 286 F 2d 442 (C A 7)
"Affirmed sub non Scofield v N L R B , 393 F 2d 49 (C A 7), 394
U S 423
"In seeking to differentiate this case from the Allan Bradley case,
Respondent points out that here the Respondent made no demand for a
clause (covering the subject of union fines ) in the contract However, I
think it clear that the principle involved in either case is the same Suffice
it to say that the violation herein found is predicted upon Respondent's
insistence that a non -mandatory subject of collective bargaining be injected
into the process of collective bargaining See N L R B v Wooster Division
Although I have found adversely to the Respondent, I
am not unsympathetic with Respondent's position that the
fines in the circumstances of this case appear to be
excessive and might well tend to inflict undue hardship
upon the union employees who returned to work during
the strike Thus, six female employees, each of whom
were fined $500, testified that they abandoned the strike
and returned to work because of personal financial
difficulties, such as the need to support themselves and
their children The wage rates of these employees ranged
between $1 66 and $1 88 per hour In this connection, it is
noteworthy that there are presently pending before the
Board three cases wherein Trial Examiners have found
that the labor organizations involved violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by imposing excessive fines upon members who
worked behind picket lines " The fines imposed in these
cases were similar, in proportion to wages earned, to those
imposed by the-Union here While the Board has not yet
passed upon the question in these cases concerning the
reasonableness of a fine, or whether an excessive fine is
violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I point to the
foregoing only because under the present state of the law
it would appear that any relief in a situation involving
excessive fines for working behind a picket line might well
lie by instituting appropriate proceedings under Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act Unfortunately for the Respondent,
it cannot press the issue in the manner which it did here
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IiI,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, it shall be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act As the Respondent on November 7,
1968, and at all times thereafter, has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the certified representative
of its employees in an appropriate unit with the good faith
required by the' Act, it will be recommended that, the
Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the
Union, and, if,an understanding is reached,, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement
It has also been found that the strike by the
Respondent's employees which was in progress at the time
of the hearing was prolonged by the Respondent's unfair
labor practices and thereby on November 7, 1968 was
converted to an unfair labor practice strike. The
of Borg Warner Corporation , 356 U S 342
"It is found that this conversion took place on November 7, 1968, the
date on which Respondent first inter jected the subject of fines as a
condition to an agreement
"Booster Lodge No 405, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers. AFL-CIO [The Boling Company) TXD-737-68,
Communication Workers of America , Local 6222 [John H RemboldJ,
TXD-259-69, Communication Workers of America, Local 6135 [Judith
GwUon , et at J, TXD-270-60
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees who were on strike on'that date and thereafter
thus became unfair labor practice strikers who were
entitled to reinstatement upon application irrespective of
whether their positions have been filled by - the
Respondent's hire of other employees as replacements for
them Accordingly, in order to restore the status quo as' it
existed prior to, the conversion of the strike on November
7, 1968, and thereby to effectuate the policies of the Act,
it will be recommended that Respondent shall, upon
application, offer reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all their
employees who were on strike on and after November 7,
1968, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired after that
date It • is also recommended that the Respondent be
ordered to make whole those employees who were on
strike on and after November 7, 1968, for any loss of pay
they may, have suffered or may suffer by reason of the
Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them, by
payment to each of them a -sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages during the
period from 5 days after that date on which he applied for
reinstatement, to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement Backpay shall be computed in the manner
prescribed by the Board in•F W Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138
NLRB 716
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
2. Lodge 1616, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3 All hourly rated production and maintenance
employees at Respondent's plant located in Black River
Falls, Wisconsin, excluding office and clerical employees,
engineers, foremen, supervisors and guards as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act
4 The above-named labor organization was on
December 18, 1958, and has been at all times thereafter,
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
above-described unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act
5 By refusing to bargain 'collectively with the
above-named labor organization, as - the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit described
above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid conduct, Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
, Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend that Respondent UOP Norplex Division of
Universal Oil Products' Company, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
l Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Lodge 1616,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers,' AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the unit comprising all
hourly rated production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's Black River Falls, Wisconsin, plant,
excluding office and clerical employees, engineers,
foremen, supervisors and guards as defined in the Act, as
amended
(b)' In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Lodge 1616,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers,- AFL-CIO,' as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit, as found above, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such 'understanding
in a signed agreement
(b) Upon application, offer immediate and- full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, to all those employees who were on
strike on and after November 7, 1968, and who have not
already been reinstated to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary any
persons hired by the Respondent on or after November 7,
1968', who were not in the Respondent's employ on that
date
(c) Make whole the employees specified in paragraph
numbered 2(b), above, 'for any loss of.pay they may have
suffer by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to
reinstate them in the manner provided in paragraph
numbered 2(b), above, by payment to each of them a sum
of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages during the period from 5 days after the
date on which he applied for reinstatement to the date of
the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings if any during said period
(d) Post at its plant in Black River Falls, Wisconsin,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "18
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 18, shall, after being signed by the
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words, "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in-the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words, "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order " -
UOP NORPLEX DIVISION OF UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS 661
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel cards and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay which
may be or become due and the rights of employment
under the terms of this Order
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith 'y
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
'WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
and, if any understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement
WE WILL NOT, in any_ like or related manner,
interfere with, restrain, or' coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL, upon application, offer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions', without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, to all our employees who were on
strike on and after November 7, 1968, and who have
not already been reinstated to their former or
substantially equivalent, positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing
if necessary any persons hired on or after November 7,
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Lodge 1616, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit The appropriate bargaining unit is
All hourly rated production and 'maintenance employees
at our plant in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, excluding
office and clerical employees, engineers, foremen,
supervisors and guards as defined in the Act, as
amended
1968.
WE WILL make each such employee whole for any
loss of pay suffered by him as a result of our failure to
reinstate him within 5 days after his application.
Dated By
UOP NORPLEX DIVISION
OF UNIVERSAL OIL
PRODUCTS COMPANY,
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this Notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal
Building , 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55401, Telephone 612-725-2618