KLB Industries, Inc. d/b/a National Extrusion and Manufacturing Company, (2011)
National Labor Relations Board
Linked as:
Extract
KLB Industries, Inc. d/b/a National Extrusion and Manufacturing Company, (2011)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.
KLB Industries, Inc. d/b/a National Extrusion & Manufacturing Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Cases 82013CA201337672 and 82013CA201337835July 26, 2011DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER AND HAYESThe issues in this case turn on whether the Respondent was obligated to provide information requested by the Union during the parties2019 negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement at the Respondent2019s facility in Bellefontaine, Ohio.1 The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide the Union with requested information relevant to the Respondent2019s asserted need for wage concessions. He further found that the Respondent, having unlawfully failed to provide that information, violated Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) by locking out its employees, temporarily replacing them, and canceling their health insurance coverage, including their COBRA rights.2 1 On January 30, 2009, Administrative Law Judge David I. Goldman issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the Charging Party filed a cross-exception and a supporting brief. The General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent filed answering briefs, and the Charging Party filed a reply brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.In accordance with our decision in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), the judge2019s recommended remedy is modified to require that backpay and other monetary awards shall be paid with interest compounded on a daily basis. Additionally, we shall modify the judge2019s recommended Order to provide for the posting of the notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010). For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Flooring, Member Hayes would not require electronic distribution of the notice. Finally, we shall modify the judge2019s proposed notice to conform to the Board2019s standard remedial language.2 There are no exceptions to the judge2019s dismissal of the allegations that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by engaging in overall bad-faith bargaining or by failing to provide requested information regarding bonuses, and violated Sec. 8(d) by failing to give proper notice for terminating its contract with the Union. Nor are there exceptions to the judge2019s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by calling the police to its facility in response to lawful picketing activity, or to the judge2019s denial of the General Counsel2019s motion to amend the complaint to allege additional violations of the Act.In adopting the judge2019s findings, we do not rely on his citations to Walgreen Co., 352 NLRB 1188 (2008); Metropolitan Home Health Care, 353 NLRB 25 (2008); and Wilshire Plaza Hotel, 353 NLRB 304 (2008).The Respondent argues principally that it was not required to furnish the requested information relevant to its asserted need for wage concessions, and thus that its lockout and related conduct were not unlawful. But even if it was required to provide that information, the Respondent further argues, the judge still erred by finding the lockout unlawful. In support of that latter argument, the Respondent first contends that the General Counsel did not allege that the lockout was tainted by the Respondent2019s refusal to provide the information, and thus that the finding violated its due process rights. Second, the Respondent argues that its refusal to provide that information did not taint the lockout in any event. After consideration of the judge2019s decision and the record in light of the exceptions and the briefs, we reject those arguments and adopt in full the reasoning and findings of the judge.3The Refusal to Furnish InformationThe Respondent entered negotiations seeking significant wage and benefit concessions. On October 3, 2007,4 about 2 weeks after bargaining began, the Respondent proposed a 12-percent reduction in wages over 3 years. Both before and after that date, the Respondent repeatedly sought to justify its demands by stating that concessions were necessary to make its facility more competitive. In particular, the Respondent asserted that it faced competition from Asia and that its production costs had increased while its production had diminished...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
