Yankee Roller Guide

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1432 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Weldment Corporation and/or R. C. White Co.,
and/or . Ralph C. White Jr., d/b/a Yankee
Roller Guide and Shopmen's Local Union No.
527,• International Association of Bridge , Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO.
Case 6-CA-16664
21 August 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
.On 16 April 1985 'Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H. Nations issued the attached decision.
The Respondent, filed exceptions, and the General
Counsel filed a response to the Respondent's excep-
tions to the judge's decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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 briefs and
has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the . administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Weldment,
Corporation and/or R. C. White Co., and/or
Ralph C. White Jr., d/b/a Yankee Roller Guide,
Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the.action set forth
in the Order.
The General Counsel filed a motion to strike certain portions of the
Respondent's exceptions The General Counsel requests that we strike
specified factual- representations made by the Respondent in its excep-
tions We find that these representations were not presented as evidence
at the hearing or subjected to cross-examination and, therefore, they are
not part of the record in this' proceeding' See Sec 102 45(b) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations Accordingly, we grant the General
Counsel's motion to strike See Today's Man, 263 NLRB 332, 333 (1982),
Fiesta Publishing Co, 268 NLRB 660 fn 1 (1984)
1 We agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent companies
and Ralph C White Jr. an individual, are alter egos-of each other We
rely on our decision in Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001 (1984), which is
consistent with the judge's analysis
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge.
Shopmen's Local Union No. 527, International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO (the Union) filed an original charge dated Oc-
tober 24 and amended same on October 5, 1983. Based
on the charge and the amended charge, the Regional Di-
rector issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated
October 5, 1983, against Weldment Corporation (Weld-
ment) and/or R. C.- White Company (White Company),
and/or Ralph C. White Jr., d/b/a Yankee Roller Guide
alleging that Respondents are a single integrated business
enterprise and single employer and/or alter ego of each
other and , further. alleging that they violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Answer filed on behalf of
Respondents denies any violation of the Act A hearing
was held,before me in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , on Feb-
ruary 17, 1984. Briefs or memorandums of. position were
,received from the General Counsel and Respondents.
Based on the entire record, including my observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor ; I make the follow-
ing -
FINDINGS OF FACT
I RESPONDENTS' BUSINESSES AND THE UNION'S
LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
A. Jurisdiction -
It' is admitted that at all times material, Respondent
Weldment Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, with
an office and place of business in Bethel Park, Pennsyl-
vania , has been engaged in the business of -steel fabrica-
tion. At all -times material herein , R. C. White Company,
a Pennsylvania corporation with an office and place of
business in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, has been engaged
in, inter alia , the business of engineering and steel fabri-
cation. At all times material herein, Respondent Yankee
Roller Guide, a sole proprietorship, with an office and
place of business in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, has been
engaged in, inter alia , the businesses of design contract
consulting, purchasing services, and materials and sub-
contracting out, inter alia, engineering and steel fabrica-
tion for. jobs it 'secures.
All Respondents admit that during the 12-month
period ending September 30, 1983, they have done busi- '
ness and provided services in excess of $50,000 with em-
ployers who' were directly engaged in interstate com-
merce. Based on the foregoing, I find and conclude'that
at all times material herein, Respondents, Weldment,
White Company and R. C. White Jr, d/b/a Yankee
Roller Guide have been employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act. .
B. Labor Organization Status
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find
and conclude that the Shopmen's Local Union No 527,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of, the Act.
C. The Relationships Between Respondents
Ralph C. White Jr. purchased all the stock of the
Weldment Corporation in 1975. As of the date of this
hearing, Ralph C. White Jr. was chairman of the board
of Weldment, its president was his wife Doris White,
vice president was John F Heslin, and Barbara Palaski
275 NLRB No. 200
WELDMENT CORP. 1433
was secretary of the 'corporation. All the stock of Weld-
ment is-owned by R. C. White. R. C. White Company
was formed as a closed corporation by R. C. White in
1972 The officers of Weldment hold the same offices in
R. C White, with an additional vice president being Paul-
McMahon Heslin - resigned as vice president of R.- C
White Company on December 31, 1983. R C. White
owns 950 of the 1000 shares of common stock in the cor-
poration and is the ' sole proprietor of Yankee Roller
Guide. At all times, Ralph C White has been responsible
for the financial decision affecting the companies, their
relationships with one another, and their labor policies.
White and his wife personally guaranteed various loans
granted by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on
behalf of the companies and at one point sought approyal
of the SBA to formally tie the three named businesses in
this proceeding into a single integrated business unit., The
companies, when-all were operational, shared common
facilities and some common employees.
Both White Company and Weldment performed vari-
ous metal fabricating assembly- and related jobs, many of
which overlapped. The companies would separately bid
on various jobs and perform them themselves, with each
other. and sometimes with outside companies. Yankee
Roller Guide operated purely as a broker for the jobs
with Ralph White soliciting work to be performed by
Yankee Roller Guide and farming out all the actual work
to other companies, some of which went to Weldment
and some to R C. White. -Yankee Roller Guide has
never had any employees other than R. C. White on its
payroll; however, it has utilized the services of employ-
ees of the other two White-owned companies.
In Truck & Dock Services, 272 NLRB 592 fn. 2 (1984),
the Board concisely summarized Board and court law
with respect to single employers status, as follows:
To determine whether two entities are sufficiently
integrated so that they may fairly be treated as a
single employer, the Board and the Courts examine
four principal factors. (1) common management;,(2)
centralized control of labor relations, (3) interrela-
tion of operation; and (4) common ownership.
The General Counsel and the Union contend, and- I
agree, that application of these standards requires a con-
clusion that the three Respondents -constitute a single em-
ployer.
All three companies are owned-almost in their entirety
by R C. White. Similarly, all three shared common man-
agement and each was clearly run in almost every signif-
icant aspect by R C. White. Financial control of all busi-
nesses rested solely in White as did control over labor
relations and virtually every other decision that required
top management approval , .
Although all three companies operated separately,
their businesses are intertwined. Yankee Roller Guide
would supply business for each of the other two compa-
nies and those two companies would supply business for
each other Records produced in the hearing indicate
that much of the work done between R. C White and
Weldment did not carry a purchase price or costing in-
formation as did those companies' work performed for
outside companies or work performed by outside compa-
nies for them.
Given the common ownership,. common management,
centralized control of labor relations, and interrelation-
ship of their operations, I find and conclude that Weld-
ment Corporation and/or R. C. White Co., and/or Ralph
C. White Jr., d/b/a' Yankee Roller Guide constitute a
"single employer."
The General Counsel further- asserts that the three
companies and White as an individual are but alter egos
of one another. In order to find an alter ego relationship
the Board must consider, in addition to the factors simi-
lar to those establishing single employer, "whether the
purpose behind the creation-of the alleged alter ego was
legitimate or whether, instead, its purpose was to evade
responsibilities under the Act " Alter ego status generally
requires that enterprises have "substantially identical
management, business purpose, operation, equipment,
customers . . supervision as well as ownership " The
term "disguise continuance" is another way of describing
an alter -ego. In Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Joint
Board, 417 U.S. 249, 259 fn. 5 (1974), the Supreme Court
pointed out that an alter ego disguise continuance case as
"involving a mere technical change in the structure or
identity of the employer and entity, frequently to avoid
the effect of labor. laws, with no substantial change in its
ownership or management."
The Board has held that an individual respondent,
along with business entity respondents, will be held per-
sonally liable for remedying unfair labor practices, par-
ticularly the make-whole remedies because of the indi-
vidual's actual operational control over and. individual's
financial control and/or ownership interest in the inte-
grated enterprises. See Campo Slack, Inc., 266 NLRB 492
(1983); Bryar Construction Co., 240 NLRB 102 (1979),
Ogle Protection Service, 149 NLRB 545, 546 (1947) I find
and conclude from the evidence that Ralph C White is
the alter ego of his business enterprises. He operates
them in an interrelated manner soliciting business for one
or the other of the businesses at his discretion White
contends on brief that Yankee Roller Guide is not the
alter ego of the other two as this business involves sub-
stantially more and different types of services than the
White Company or Weldment have ever provided.
Though this may be true of, Yankee Roller Guide, it cer-
tainly. is not true of.R. C. White as an individual. Busi-
ness is evidently juggled between the White Company
and Weldment at virtually the sole discretion of White
himself. Further, White, in his operation of Yankee
Roller Guide, has solicited work that, at least in part, re-
quires the services offered by the White Company and
Weldment as work has been -funneled to these compa-
nies. In fact, as will be established later, White attempted
to put into business'one or more of the employees of
Weldment as entrepreneurs to perform work that they
had been traditionally performing, and doing so on
behalf of Yankee Roller Guide. The Board has properly
made service on White as an individual and, as noted,.he
appeared in his own behalf at the hearing held in this
proceeding Therefore, I find that each of the named Re-
spondents and Ralph C. White as an individual are
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proper Respondents in this proceeding and are jointly re-
sponsible for remedying any of the unfair labor practices
which may. be found to exist.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Collective-Bargaining Relationship
The complaint alleges, and Weldment admits, the fol-
lowing constituted a unit appropriate for collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent Weldment at its Bethel Park,
Pennsylvania and vicinity facilities; excluding all
other employees, office clerical, draftsmen, janitors,
watchmen and guards, engineering employees, pro-
fessional employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The complaint alleges and Weldment admits that, since
approximately March 1965 and at all times material
herein, the Charging Party has -been the designated ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
and, since approximately March 1965, the Charging
Party has been recognized as such representative by Re-
spondent Weldment. Such recognition was embodied in a
collective-bargaining agreement which was effective by
its terms for the period August 1, .1980, to August 1,
1983.
B. Alleged Request and.Inducement to Employees to
Reject the Union
As noted above, the Union's contract-with Respondent
Weldment was due to expire on July 31, 1983. Consistent
with its policy, ' on May 5, 1983, the Union, through
James Puglin, business agent , sent ' a'letter to Weldment
informing it that it was ready-to bargain and negotiate a
new collective-bargaining agreement to become effective
at the expiration "of the current agreement : Puglin testi-
fied that on a number of occasions thereafter, before the
expiration of the contract, he attempted to contact Ralph
White about negotiations . On one occasion he did meet
with White briefly but nothing was accomplished. There
were no serious. negotiations for a new contract.
White denies that a conversation, with Puglin ever'oc-
curred between May -and the time of closing of Weld-
ment. He believes , that the conversation mentioned by
Puglin took place some time after the.charge was filed in
this proceeding. White does admit , however,.that abso-
lutely no bargaining took place on tlie' contract because
at some point iii the early summer, .because of financial
pressure from the SBA, White decided. he had to try-,to
find a way to make his business viable or, the Weldment
Corporation would be forced into bankruptcy.. To .this
end, he apparently decided to close the operation, of
Weldment and., conduct all of the type business, that
Weldment had con. ducted , under, the, banner of, R.. C
White Company: . . , .
.
In May or early June White had a meeting with Weld-
ment employees where he, explained the company's fi-
nancial difficulties, and stated that he had to make a pro-
posal to SBA to keep them from -foreclosing on:, the-se-
cured assets of Weldment The proposal to the employ-
ees-was introduced in this record as General Counsel's
Exhibit 3 and, in summary ,- consisted of a request that
the employees of Weldment become the employees of R.
C. White Company on a nonunion basis, at roughly the
same salary and benefit level that 'they =had with the
Union . According to the credible testimony of ` John
Heslin , a working foreman for the company, one or
more of the employees asked. White, that, since as the
wages and benefits that he proposed for their employ-
ment at the White Company were similar to those being
paid under the union contract, why could not he just
sign another union contract? To this comment, White re-
plied that he did not want-to be committed. Heslin indi-
cated • that the employees would be willing to perhaps
make concessions with respect to the contract, to which
White replied he did not want to talk about it and did
not want to be committed. White approached working
Foreman Helsin around July 4 and offered Helsin the op-
portunity to provide Weldment-type services on work he
obtained either under the R. C. White Company banner
or as Yankee Roller Guide. Under the arrangement pro-
posed, Helsin would only provide services for the White
Company or, Yankee Roller Guide and would be finan-
cially responsible for the unit of employees providing the
Weldment type services. Helsin rejected this proposal. _
After the employees indicated their unwillingness to
work on a nonunion basis for the White Company, and
after Heslin _had turned down the proposal to, in effect,
set him up in business, - White sent employee John
Weston a letter on August 9. making him an offer some-
what. similar to that made to Helsm. In discussing the
proposal with White, Weston learned that the job would
be a nonunion one and he declined it. During the discus-
sions doubt the proposal, White said to Weston, in re-
sponse to a question whether the' Union would be in-
volved, "No, because the R C. White employees are not
members of the Union and Weston's job as a supervisor
or,whatever you want to call it would not necessarily be
a union job."
The facts set out above, with which White indicates
are essentially correct, clearly indicate that White had no
intention of meeting with the Charging_ Party or of bar-
gaining and negotiating over a. new contract. It clearly
shows that he intended to terminate. the operations at
Weldment and attempt to continue those operations on a
nonunion basis. To this end, the ,facts reveal that White
entirely bypassed, the Charging Party Union and dealt di-
rectly with his,Weldiient employees to accept employ-
ment either at_,the R. C White Company or in a new
venture on a nonunion basis. Under the new venture pro-
posals, the equipment building, and overhead for the op-
erationwould be provided by White. By these actions, I
find that Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.
C. Alleged Refusal to Bargain Over Closing Weldment
'and Refusal to Hire Union Members. in White
Company
About August 1, 1983, the Weldment employees pre-
sented to White an agreement they wanted signed which
WELDMENT CORP. 1435
would continue in effect. the contract between Weldment
and the Union on a day-to-day basis. As presented, the
agreement would require White to agree to bargain and
negotiate fora new contract. After some give and take,
White agreed to sign the agreement , but only if all por-
tions of it indicating any future intent to bargain were
stricken from it. As signed, on August 1, White only
agreed to extend the agreement on a day-to-day basis so
that there would be no work stoppage on August 1,
1983. On August 19, 1983, the employees of Weldment
were notified that they were being permanently laid off
and that the Weldment Corporation's operations were to
be terminated . No notification of the termination was
given directly to the. Charging Party Union and there
has been no willingness on the part of White or any of
the other Respondents to.bargain -with the Union over
the effects of the decision to terminate the Weldment op-
erations.
After August 19, management employees of Weldment
began to be paid by the R. C. White Company. A small
amount of work that was in progress on August 19 at
Weldment was transferred and finished at R. C White
Company. R. C. White Company hired employee Carlos
Barnette on August 22, and approximately 1 month later
another employee Sam Rafael. These two employees
were employed on a nonunion basis by R C. White
Company and performed tasks which are essentially simi-
lar to those performed by the employees in the Weld-
ment bargaining unit . From August 19 to the date of this
hearing, there have been no further operations at Weld-
ment, and R C. White Company has continued to stay in
business, providing, at least in part, work that had previ-
ously been done at Weldment. However, as of the date
of this hearing, it did not appear that there was any
work presently being done by the R. C: White Company
of the type that had been done previously by the bar-
gaining unit at Weldment.
I find from the evidence presented, that R. C. White
intended to, and-by his actions did; reject the Charging
Party Union as the bargaining agent for the members-of
the bargaining unit at Weldment F also find that he in-
tended to, and by his actions did, transfer bargaining unit
work from the Weldment Corporation to R. C. White
Company without bargaining over the effects of the de-
cision to transfer such work with the Charging Party
Union. I additionally `find from the evidence that R. C.
White refused to offer employment to the members of
the bargaining unit if the Charging Party Union contin-
ued to represent them. I, therefore, conclude that R. C
White's actions as a single employer and/or alter ego 'of
all Respondents in these regards constitute violations of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act. As of the date of this hearing, the violations
were continuing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Weldment Corporation and/or R. C. White Co.,
and/or Ralph C . White Jr., d/b/a Yankee Roller Guide
constitute a single employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Weldment Corporation and/or R. C. White Co,
and/or Ralph C. White,. Jr., d/b/a Yankee Roller Guide
and Ralph C. White Jr., an individual , are alter egos of
one another.
3. All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent Weldment Corporation at its
Bethel Park, Pennsylvania and vicinity facilities; exclud-
ing all other employees, office clerical, draftsmen, jani-
tors, watchmen and guards, engineering employees, pro-
fessional emlployees and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
4. Since approximately March 1965, and at all times
material herein , the Charging Party Union has been the
duly designated collective-bargaining representative of
Weldment Corporation employees in the above-described
unit.
5. Since about May 5, 1983, Respondents refused and
continued to refuse to bargain with the Union over the
terms and conditions of employment of the employees in
the unit-set out in paragraph 3, above, have bypassed the
Union and bargained directly with members of the. unit,
and have attempted to induce the members of the unit to
reject the Union as its collective-bargaining representa-
tive in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
6. Since about August 19, 1983, Respondents have re-
jected the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the members of the unit described above, have re-
fused to bargain with the Union over the effects of the
decision to close the Weldment' Corporation, have re-
fused to offer employment to members of the Union 'and
its surviving company, R. C. White, if the Union contin-
ued to represent them and has transferred bargaining unit
work from, the Weldment. Corporation to R C. White
Company without bargaining over the transfer of such
work with the,Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5) of the Act.
7.•• The above unfair labor practices affect ' commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THEREMEDY
It having been'found that Respondents have engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that
they be directed to cease and desist. therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. ' " '
As I have found that Respondents have violated the
Act by withdrawing recognition from and 'refusing to
'ba'rgain in good faith with the 'Union, transferring bar-
gaining unit work from Weldment Corporation to"R. 'C.
White' Company'without bargaining with the Union over
the effects -of such a transfer, 'and, conditioning continued
employment of err'iployees within the Union on rejection
of the Union and refusing to employ such members of
the unit because of their 'union 'inembership, Respondents
shall be required to offer members of the bargaining unit
set out above, on the basis of seniority, positions with
Respondents for which bargaining unit' work exists, re-
placing,'if necessary,'nonbargaining unit employees hired
after August 19, 1983 or, if no such positions exist, to
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employ the members of the bargaining unit, on the basis
of seniority, for any such positions: which become avail-
able, and to make the members of the bargaining unit
whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of
the unlawful discrimination against them All 'backpay
due under the terms of this order shall be computed,
with interest, in the manner prescribed in F. W. W661-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1960), and Florida Steel Corp.,
231 NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumbing Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962)
On these findings of fact and conclusions ' of *law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed I
ORDER
Respondents Weldment Corporation 'and/or R. C.
White Co, and/or Ralph C. White Jr., d/b/a Yankee
Roller Guide, and Ralph C. White Jr., 'an individual,
Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, their officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from -
(a) Withdrawing recognition from and refusing to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union. , -
(b) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with
their employees. ,
(c) Conditioning continued employment of employees
on rejection of the Union
(d) Refusing to employ employees because of their
union membership.
(e) In- any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining,' or coercing employees -in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) On request, bargain collectively and. in good, faith
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the above-described unit concerning
any' changes in wages, hours, working conditions, or
other terms or conditions of employment.
(b) On request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with the above-named Union over the effects of the deci-
sion to close Weldment Corporation and transfer bar-
gaining unit work.
(c) Offer members of the above-described unit, on the
basis of seniority, immediate employment with any of
Respondents to ' which bargaining unit' work was trans-
ferred, replacing, if necessary, any employees hired by
Respondent, after August 19, 1983; or if no such posi-
tions exist at this time, to offer to members of said, bar-
gaining unit, on the basis of seniority,-such positions as
they become available
(d) Make members of the above-described bargaining
unit whole for'any losses they may have suffered by the
unlawful refusal to offer positions with' Respondents after
the cessation -of operations at Weldment Corporation, in
i 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 .
the manner described in the portion of this decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its-agents for examination' and copying, all pay-
roll records,' social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(f) Post at its Bethel Park, Pennsylvania location,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2
'Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director .for. Region 6, after being signed by Respond-
ents' authorized representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondents immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees, are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents
to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this. Order what steps Respondents
have taken to comply
I 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
i
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 or-
dered 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 protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights. More specifically:
WE WILL NOT withdraw"recognition from and refuse
to bargain in good faith with Shopmen's Local Union
No 527, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO
WE WILL NOT bypass and deal directly with our em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT condition employment upon rejection
of Shopmen's Local Union No. 527..
WE WILL NOT refuse to employ persons because of
their union membership.
WELDMENT CORP
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively and in good
faith with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees in the unit described below:
All production 'and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent Weldment Corporation
and/or ,R. C. White Co.; and/or Ralph C. White,
Jr., an individual, at-its Bethel Park, Pennsylvania
and vicinity facilities; excluding all other employees,
office clerical, draftsmen; janitors, watchmen and
guards,engineering employees, professional employ-
ees and supervisors as defined in the Act
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively and in good
faith with the Union over the effects of the decision to
1437
close Weldment Corporation and transfer bargaining unit
work
WE WILL offer members of the above-described unit,
on the basis of seniority, immediate employment with
any of our companies to which, bargaining work was
transferred, replacing, if necessary, any employees hired
by us after August 19, 1983, or, if no such positions exist
at this time, offer to members of the bargaining unit, on
the basis of seniority, such positions as they become
available
WE WILL make members of the above-described bar-
gaining unit whole for any loss they may have suffered
by our unlawful refusal to offer positions of employment
after cessation of operations at Weldment Corporation,
with interest
WELDMENT CORPORATION AND/OR R. C.
WHITE CO, AND/OR RALPH C. WHITE JR.,
D/B/A YANKEE ROLLER GUIDE