Wire Products Mfg. Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1999

328 N.L.R.B. 855 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

WIRE PRODUCTS MFG. CORP. 855
Wire Products Manufacturing Corporation and Dis-
trict W3, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO. Cases
30–CA–13999 and 30–CA–14069
June 28, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND HURTGEN
On March 31, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Karl
H. Buschmann issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed limited exceptions.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the
judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt
the recommended Order as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Wire
Products Manufacturing Corporation, Merrill, Wiscon-
sin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d).
“(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its Merrill, Wisconsin, facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since April 10, 1997.”

Percy J. Courseault III and Miann B. Navarre, Esqs., for the
General Counsel.
Ray T. Blankenship (R. T. Blankenship and Associates), of
Greenwood, Indiana, for the Respondent.

1 The Respondent filed no exceptions.
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decision in Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997).
In accord with the General Counsel’s unopposed limited exception,
we hereby amend the judge’s recommended remedy to include the
traditional statement that nothing in this Decision and Order is to be
construed to require the Respondent to withdraw any benefit previously
granted unless requested by the Union.
Kristine R. Weirauch, Esq. (Daubert Law Firm), of Wausau,
Wisconsin, for the Respondent.
Joe Cooper, Grand Lodge Representative, of Westchester,
Illinois, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Wausau, Wisconsin, on November 5, 1998, upon a
consolidated complaint, dated March 2, 1998, alleging that the
Respondent, Wire Products Manufacturing Corporation, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (5), and 8(d) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act). The charges were filed in Case 30–CA–
13999 on September 18, 1997, and in Case 30–CA–14069 on
November 18, 1997, by District W3, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union).
On the entire record, including my observation of the wit-
nesses and after considering the briefs by the parties, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Wire Products Manufacturing Corporation located in Merrill,
Wisconsin, is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of
wire forms and metal stripping. With purchases of goods val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State
of Wisconsin, the Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
District W3, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On September 20, 1993, the Union was certified as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the following unit of Re-
spondent’s employees, which numbered about 168:

All full-time and part-time production and maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Matthews and
Genesee Street operations in Merrill, Wisconsin; but exclud-
ing office clerical employees, managerial employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.

The number of employees in that unit decreased to about 60
in 1998.
On February 26, 1996, the Respondent and the Union exe-
cuted a collective-bargaining agreement effective until Febru-
ary 26, 1999 (G.C. Exh. 3(a)). Representing the Company was
R. T. Blankenship and Associates, Rayford T. Blankenship. and
Stephen LePage, members of the firm. They are alleged in the
complaint to be agents for the Respondent. That allegation is
not contested.
The record also shows that the Respondent has been the sub-
ject of at least two prior proceedings, which resulted in findings
that the Respondent had committed serious violations of the
Act. In a decision dated, August 27, 1998,1 the Board found
that the Respondent and R. T. Blankenship and Associates vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. The misconduct
included threatening and interrogating the employees and re-
1 326 NLRB 625.
328 NLRB No. 115
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 856
stricting them from distributing union literature, unilaterally
changing the employees’ working conditions, withdrawing
recognition from the Union, and refusing to negotiate in good
faith. Administrative Law Judge Wagman’s decision of April
30, 1998,2 also showed that this Employer committed numerous
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, by unilateral
changes of working conditions, refusals to comply with the
collective-bargaining agreements, repudiations of certain con-
tract provisions, and refusals to bargain in good faith concern-
ing the employees’ working conditions (G.C. Exh. 2).
In the present case, the Respondent is charged with unilater-
ally removing unit work from the bargaining unit by designat-
ing unit employees to nonunit personnel or supervisory posi-
tions, unilaterally paying wages to employees inconsistent with
the contractual pay rates and refusing to provide certain infor-
mation requested by the Union in a letter of October 2, 1997.
The record which is not contested by conflicting testimony
shows that on May 18, 1997, employee Elroy Raasch, a booth
welder assigned to the wire feed welding department, was pro-
moted to a working foreman’s position. As a welder in Re-
spondent’s welding department, Raasch was a member of the
bargaining unit prior to this promotion. The record also shows
that Joe Janikowski, an employee initially assigned to the tool
room and who subsequently did maintenance work, was also
promoted sometime during the summer of 1997 probably in
September to the supervisor’s position of the maintenance de-
partment.
Daniel Graf, Respondent’s plant manager, testified that
Raasch in his new position performed the same work which he
did prior to his promotion “plus his other duties” which was
described as training new employees, supervise them and direct
them on different jobs. The “weekly resource performance
summary” for the employee showed that the so-called “other
duties” identified in that document as “indirect” labor
amounted to no more than 1 or 2 hours per week (G.C. Exh. 7).
It is accordingly clear that Raasch’s actual work did not change
significantly. In either capacity, as a unit employee or as a
working foreman who was no longer a member of the unit, his
primary duties consisted of welding in the welding booth. The
additional duties or indirect labor such as training and directing
other employees which the Respondent argues justified his
supervisory status had been performed by Raasch also prior to
his removal from the bargaining unit.
The record shows a similar scenario for the maintenance em-
ployee Janikowski. He performed maintenance work while he
was a member of the bargaining unit. After his promotion to
supervisor, he was frequently the only employee assigned to the
maintenance department. At times there were two employees
in the department. In this regard Graf testified (Tr. 69): “At
the time Janikowski was supervisor he was sometimes alone
and at—sometimes he had one other maintenance worker under
him.” As the only employee in that department, or at the most
two, it is clear that Janikowski’s duties had not changed signifi-
cantly and that he was performing unit work as a “supervisor”
even though he was no longer a member of the bargaining unit.
The Union filed grievances about the removal of the two
employees out of their bargaining units, alleging violations of
pertinent provisions in the bargaining agreement. The Respon-
dent denied the grievances (G.C. Exhs. 4–6).

2 JD–71–98.
The record also shows that Rayford Blankenship informed
James Cveykus, the Union’s business representative, during a
step-three grievance meeting on October 1, 1997, that the work
was “a bargaining unit job” and “that the reason the company
made him [Raasch] a foreman is so we can pay him more
money and keep him because we [the Company] are loosing
too many people” (Tr. 100). Finally, it is also uncontested that
the Company made these decisions unilaterally and without
notice to the Union and without affording the Union the oppor-
tunity to bargain.
The General Counsel recognizes the obvious right of an em-
ployer to promote employees to supervisory positions, but cit-
ing Duke University, 315 NLRB 1291 (1995), and Land
O’Lakes, 299 NLRB 982 (1990), he properly argues that the
employer’s unilateral action in removing a unit employee from
the unit and promoting him to a supervisory position where he
would continue to perform bargaining unit work is unlawful.
Here, the Respondent failed to offer the Union an opportunity
to bargain before designating Raasch to a working foreman’s
position and promoting Janikowski to maintenance supervisor.
Both individuals were expected to perform essentially the same
work, which they had done before. The practical effect of Re-
spondent’s actions was the removal of two employees from
their unit, effectively reducing the number of employees in that
unit. I accordingly find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
The Respondent’s defense suggesting that this matter should
have been deferred to arbitration is not persuasive. Where, as
here, the Respondent’s conduct has indicated a rejection of the
collective-bargaining process and the organizational rights of
its employees, deferral to arbitration is contraindicated. Collyer
Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971). The Respondent sum-
marily rejected the Union’s grievances in this case. The record
shows that the Respondent has been found in two recent cases
to have violated the Act, profoundly affecting the employees’
rights. In particular, the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act to the extent that the Board found it
necessary to issue a broad order. I accordingly find that the
Respondent’s request for a deferral of this case to arbitration
must be denied.
The complaint next alleges that the Respondent unilaterally
changed the employees’ wage rates without notice to the Union
or affording it the opportunity to bargain. The Union heard by
word of mouth in August 1997 that employees were paid incor-
rectly. A comparison of the wage rates on an employee list of
March 27, 1997, with those on an employee list dated August
15, 1997, showed that some rates of pay were inconsistent
(G.C. Exh. 10). The evidence shows that eight employees
(Karen Bushar, Phyllis Duellman, Chris Duginski, Clay Ossig,
Jim Peterson, Jeanette Scheu, Richard Watroba, and John
Wendt) received wage increases between March 27, 1997, and
August 15, 1997 (G.C. Exh. 9). Yet the Respondent’s plant
manager testified unequivocally that according to the contract
the employees should not have received any rate increases be-
tween March 27, 1997, and August 15, 1997 (G.C. Exh. 3(a)).
The Respondent argues, however, that the wage increases were
justified because these employees had been designated as train-
ers or group leaders (G.C. Exh. 5(e)).
The record does not support the Respondent’s argument.
Respondent’s payroll records show that the employees were
paid at the higher rate of pay as of May 29, 1997 (Jim Peterson
on April 10, 1997) (G.C. Exh. 12).
WIRE PRODUCTS MFG. CORP. 857
The trainer positions, however, did not come into being until
after May 1997. For example, the prior decision by Judge
Wagman established that discussions about trainer positions
were first held in June 1997, and on July 8, 1997, the Company
had posted a notice at the plant concerning a trainer position
(G.C. Exh. 2(b)). Not until September 20, 1997, was the crea-
tion of a trainer position agreed to between the parties and
made a part of the collective-bargaining agreement by adden-
dum (G.C. Exh. 3(b)). The record accordingly shows that Re-
spondent’s justification for the higher pay rates for the employ-
ees, namely their promotion to trainer positions, is inaccurate.
The Respondent’s alternate justification for the pay differ-
ence, i.e., that the employees were classified as group leaders,
is also implausible. The Respondent provided information
claiming that four employees (Jim Peterson, John Wendt, Clay
Ossig, and Jeanette Scheu) were group leaders (G.C. Exh. 13).
Out of these four, only Peterson’s new wage rate accurately
reflects a leadman’s pay as provided in the collective-
bargaining agreement. Relying upon payroll documents pro-
vided by the Respondent, the General Counsel compared the
hourly pay of the four employees prior to the raise with that
after the unilaterally implemented pay raise. Wendt went from
$6.48 to $6.68; Ossig from $7.42 to $7.62; Scheu from $7.07 to
$7.37; and Peterson from $6.90 to $8.64. The General Counsel
then calculated the hourly pay for these employees based upon
article X of the collective-bargaining agreement which provides
that group leaders shall be paid “an additional 10% per hour
over the highest rate (including shift premium) of the highest
paid employee that they had.” The correct rates would have
been $7.17 for Wendt, $7.72 for Ossig, either $7.16 or $7.72
for Scheu, and $8.64 for Peterson. Only the latter’s pay ac-
cords with the contractual pay for a group leader. Indeed, at a
meeting with the Union on September 16, 1997, Plant Manager
Graf was able to identify only two of the purported leadpersons
(G.C. Exh. 5(d)). Finally, Cveykus’ testimony about his Octo-
ber 1 conversation with R. T. Blankenship confirmed that the
Respondent gave titles to the employees to justify higher rates
of pay. While an employer’s intentions to augment the pay for
its employees are commendable, the law simply requires man-
agement to notify the Union and be willing to bargain in good
faith. Here, the Respondent unilaterally changed the terms of
the bargaining agreement and implemented changes in the em-
ployees’ rates of pay, without notice to the Union. I accord-
ingly find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act.
The complaint’s final allegation is that the Respondent failed
and refused to provide the Union with information requested by
letter of October 2, 1997 (G.C. Exh. 14). In it the Union re-
quested that the Company furnish the Union on each Monday
for the preceding workweek the following:

1. All Bargaining Unit Employees Names
2. All Bargaining Unit Employees Current Hourly
Rate of Pay
3. All Bargaining Unit Employees Current Classifica-
tion
4. All Bargaining Unit Employees that are transferred
from a Bargaining Unit position to a Non-Bargaining Unit
Position.
Any and all bonuses, benefits that are changed or
granted to Bargaining Unit Employees that are covered by
the Collective Bargaining Agreement or are mandatory
subjects of bargaining.
The Respondent is correct that the letter is silent as to the
reasons for the information. However, it should be clear by the
nature of the request that its relevancy was the Respondent’s
unilateral actions, the changes in pay and the unit work, which
had been the subject of the Union’s grievances. More impor-
tantly, the Company knew precisely the reason for the Union’s
request, because the record shows that the Respondent, critical
of the Union about the timing of the grievances, suggested: “If I
was you, on this time limit, and you had that right, I would on a
weekly basis I would make the Company give you everybody’s
name, the wages, the job classification, the jobs that they were
transferred to.” (Tr. 134.) The Union accepted the suggestion.
Yet the Union did not receive any response to the October 2
letter.
The Respondent, conceding “that in the processing of griev-
ances, the Union’s right to information is generally liberally
construed and the information deemed relevant,” argues that the
request was overly broad and burdensome and that in any case
the information was provided through correspondence.
While the Company had supplied the names and wage rates
at various times, it did not respond to the job classification
request. For example, the Respondent faxed a list of employees
to the Union on August 26, 1997. It predated the request and
was obviously not in response to the October 2 request (R. Exh.
2). The next communication was a letter dated November 25,
1997, from the Respondent to the Union, enclosing a seniority
list dated November 6, 1997 (R. Exh. 3). The Respondent’s
letter clearly shows that this seniority list was not a response to
the Union’s October 2, request, because it states that the infor-
mation had been intended for a union steward who no longer
worked for the Company. Another seniority list, dated Decem-
ber 15, 1997, was sent to the Union. That list did not show job
classifications, pay rates or transfers (R. Exh. 4). The next
communication was a letter, dated February 20, 1998, purport-
ing to be a classification or listing. The list shows employees’
labor grades, and whether they are a trainer or a group leader
(R. Exh. 5). The list does not reflect transfers nor the type of
work the employees performed such as maintenance work or
welder positions. In any case, this information was not pro-
vided until 4 months following the Union’s request.
The next piece of information was another seniority list
dated February 17, 1998. The list does not show any pay rates,
classifications or transfers (R. Exh. 6). Another list was sup-
plied to the Union showing employees’ pay rates and bonus
information (R. Exh. 7). The list is dated December 18, 1997,
but the record does not show whether the Union received this
list in 1997 or at any time prior to the hearing in this case. But
it clearly was not responsive to the Union’s request. The testi-
mony of James Cveykus supports the finding that the Respon-
dent did not meet the Union’s information request. The Re-
spondent’s argument that this information was responsive to the
Union’s information request must be rejected.
Information sought concerning bargaining unit employees is
presumptively relevant for purposes of collective bargaining
and must be furnished on request. NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). The employer is obligated to furnish
the information in a timely and reasonable time. Barclay Ca-
terers, 308 NLRB 1025 (1992). The Respondent’s failure and
refusal to do so constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act.
In conclusion, the General Counsel argues that the Respon-
dent’s exhibits purporting to be responsive to the Union’s re-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 858
quest for information should not have been admitted into evi-
dence, because the Respondent had failed to comply with the
subpoena duces tecum requesting the documents responsive to
the October 2 request (G.C. Exh. 2(c); R. Exhs. 2–7). Ordinar-
ily, the General Counsel is correct in its position that a Respon-
dent should be estopped from introducing into evidence docu-
ments which it refused to produce pursuant to a legitimate sub-
poena request. The Respondent made a last minute effort to
provide relevant information necessary for the trial as reflected
in the record (Tr. 11–12). Here, the Respondent mounted a
limited defense and did not call any witnesses. Under these
circumstances, I exercised my discretion to admit the docu-
ments which, however, show conclusively that the Respondent
failed to provide the Union with the necessary and relevant
information.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Wire Products Manufacturing Corpora-
tion, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. R. T. Blankenship & Associates, Rayford T. Blankenship,
and Stephen D. LePage, as Respondent’s labor relations con-
sultants are admittedly agents of Respondent within the mean-
ing of Section 2(13) of the Act.
3. The Union, District W3, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. All full-time and regular-part time production and main-
tenance employees employed by Wire Products at its Matthews
and Genesse Street operations in Merrill, Wisconsin; but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, managerial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. At all times material to these cases, the Union has been
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit described above.
6. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act by:
(a) Promoting unit employees to supervisory or foreman
positions and removing bargaining unit classifications included
in the collective-bargaining agreement and removing unit work
from the bargaining unit, without notice to the Union or afford-
ing it to the opportunity to bargain.
(b) Changing the unit employees’ compensation or rates of
pay as provided in the collective-bargaining agreement without
notice to the Union and affording it the opportunity to bargain.
(c) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union the information
which is necessary and relevant to the Union’s function as the
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent uni-
laterally removed the bargaining unit classifications and re-
duced the bargaining unit as provided for in the collective-
bargaining agreement, the Respondent must be ordered to re-
scind the unilateral changes and to restore the bargaining unit
classifications and unit work to the former conditions. Having
found that the Respondent unilaterally changed the rates of pay
of its unit employee, which did not result in a loss of pay for the
unit employees, the Respondent must be ordered to bargain in
good faith about the changes upon request of the Union. Hav-
ing further found that the Respondent failed and refused to
provide the Union with necessary and relevant information, the
Respondent must be ordered to provide the information without
delay. Finally, the Respondent having shown a proclivity to
violate the Act as found in the prior decision, it is necessary to
issue a broad cease and desist order. Hickmott Foods, 242
NLRB 1357 (1979).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Wire Products Manufacturing Corporation,
Merrill, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, including R. T. Blank-
enship & Associates, and Rayford T. Blankenship, and Stephen
D. LePage, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
with the Union, District W3, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following unit:

All full time and regular part time production and mainte-
nance employees employed by Wire Products at its Matthews
and Genesee Street operations in Merrill, Wisconsin; but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, managerial employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

(b) Promoting unit employees to supervisory or foreman po-
sitions and removing bargaining unit classifications and unit
work from the bargaining unit or making any other changes.
(c) Changing the unit employees’ compensation and rates of
pay as provided in the collective-bargaining agreements or
making any other changes.
(d) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with necessary
and relevant information without delay.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request of the Union, rescind its actions of removing
bargaining unit classifications and the removal of bargaining
unit work from the bargaining unit and restore the working
conditions as they existed prior to its unilateral actions.
(b) On request of the Union, bargain in good faith about any
changes in the rates of pay of unit employees.
(c) Provide the Union without delay the information re-
quested in its letter of October 2, 1997, and all other relevant
and necessary records.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
plant in Merrill, Wisconsin, copies of the attached notice

3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
WIRE PRODUCTS MFG. CORP. 859
marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith con-
cerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment with the Union, District W3, International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit:

All full time and regular part time production and
maintenance employees employed by Wire Products at its
Matthews and Genesee Street operations in Merrill, Wis-
consin; but excluding office clerical employees, manage-
rial employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.

WE WILL NOT promote unit employees to supervisory or
foreman positions and remove bargaining unit classifications
and unit work from the bargaining unit or make any other
changes.
WE WILL NOT change the unit employees’ compensation and
rates of pay as provided in the collective–bargaining agreement
or make any other changes.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with neces-
sary and relevant information without delay.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the actions of re-
moving bargaining unit classifications and the removal of bar-
gaining unit work from the bargaining unit and restore the
working conditions as they existed prior to the unilateral ac-
tions.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, bargain in good faith
about any changes in the rates of pay of unit employees.
WE WILL without delay provide the Union with the informa-
tion requested in its October 2, 1997 letter and all other relevant
and necessary records.
WIRE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION