B & B Trucking, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 2005

345 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

B & B TRUCKING 1
B & B Trucking, Inc. and B & B Trucking Inc. Em-
ployees Association. Case 7–CA–47022
August 19, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On May 27, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Jane
Vandeventer issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a reply
brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the
decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,1 find-
ings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Or-
der as modified and set forth in full below.2

1 We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(5) by failing to provide the Union with requested information on
health care costs per employee. The Union requested information
about how the Respondent’s health care cost “broke down per person.”
The Respondent argued, for the first time in its reply brief, that it law-
fully withheld this information because it contained confidential medi-
cal information of individual employees. The Respondent never raised
or requested to bargain with the Union about its confidentiality con-
cerns. Moreover, the Respondent did not except to the judge’s unfair
labor practice finding concerning its failure to furnish per-employee
health care cost information. See Board’s Rules and Regulations Sec.
102.46(g). Indeed, even if it had so excepted, the Respondent’s confi-
dentiality argument would not properly be before us, as it is outside the
scope of the General Counsel’s answering brief. Id. Sec. 102.46(h).
Nevertheless, we interpret the Union’s request as seeking only the
Respondent’s average health care cost per unit employee—data which
would not implicate confidentiality concerns, much less the confidenti-
ality concerns asserted by the Respondent for the first time in its reply
brief.
The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent, in violation of
Sec. 8(a)(5), unilaterally implemented its proposal to offset a 20-cent-
per-hour increase in fringe benefits with a corresponding decrease in
wages. To remedy this unfair labor practice, paragraph 2(a) of the
judge’s recommended Order requires the Respondent to “[r]estore the
20-cent-per-hour benefit payment to employees from July 1, 2003, to
such time as Respondent bargains in good faith over the issue with the
Union,” and paragraph 2(d) adds a standard make-whole remedy. The
Respondent challenges paragraph 2(a), contending that its backpay
liability is negligible or nonexistent in light of its commitment, made
contemporaneously with the implementation of its proposal, not to pass
on increased health insurance costs to employees until July 1, 2004.
We express no view as to the merits of this contention, which relates to
mitigation of the Respondent’s backpay liability and therefore may be
raised at compliance. However, we agree with the Respondent that the
wording of paragraph 2(a) might be interpreted to preclude it from
doing so, and we have modified that wording accordingly. As modi-
fied, paragraph 2(a) requires the Respondent to rescind its unilaterally
implemented proposal. The make-whole remedy of paragraph 2(d)
remains. Together, these provisions achieve the Board’s remedial
purpose of restoring the status quo that obtained prior to the unlawful
unilateral change. See, e.g., Larry Geweke Ford, 344 NLRB No. 78,
slip op. at 1–2 (2005).
2 We amend the remedy section of the judge’s decision to provide
that backpay shall be calculated in accordance with Ogle Protection
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, B & B Trucking, Inc., Kalamazoo, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Dealing directly with employees and bypassing
their collective-bargaining representative, the B & B
Trucking Inc. Employees Association (the Union).
(b) Disparaging the Union, advising employees to
change their representatives, and seeking to interfere in
the Union’s internal affairs.
(c) Delaying provision of and failing to provide rele-
vant and necessary information requested by the Union
concerning bargaining unit employees’ health benefit
costs.
(d) Refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the bargain-
ing unit set forth below by unilaterally changing the open
enrollment period for employee health benefits and uni-
laterally implementing a proposal to offset a 20-cent-
increase in hourly fringe benefits with a corresponding
decrease in wages.
(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) Rescind the unilaterally implemented proposal to
offset a 20-cent increase in hourly fringe benefits with a
corresponding decrease in wages.
(b) Upon request of the Union, rescind the unilateral
changes to the open enrollment period for employee
health benefits.
(c) Provide to the Union the information it requested
on July 17, 2003 regarding health benefit costs for bar-
gaining unit employees.
(d) Make employees whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful
actions taken against them in accordance with Ogle Pro-
tection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d
502 (6th Cir. 1971), plus interest as computed in accor-

Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971),
rather than F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). The F. W.
Woolworth method of calculating backpay does not apply here because
the violations found do not involve cessation or denial of employment.
See, e.g., CAB Associates, 340 NLRB 1391, 1393 (2003).
In addition to the modification explained above in fn. 1, we have
modified the judge’s recommended Order (1) to reflect the appropriate
method of calculating backpay as stated above, (2) to include an inad-
vertently omitted remedy for the Respondent’s unlawful unilateral
change to the open enrollment period for health benefits, and (3) to
more closely conform to the Board’s standard remedial language. We
have also substituted a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
dance with New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987).
(e) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following bargaining unit:
All regular full-time, new hire full-time, and regular
part-time truck drivers of B & B Trucking, Inc.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Kalamazoo, Michigan, Ft. Wayne, Michigan, Detroit,
Michigan, Chicago, Illinois, and Syracuse, New York
facilities, copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent 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 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 Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facilities 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 July 17, 2003.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY THE ORDER OF THE

3 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.”
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT deal directly with our employees and
bypass their collective-bargaining representative, the B
& B Trucking Inc. Employees Association (the Union).
WE WILL NOT disparage the Union, advise our employ-
ees to change their representatives, or seek to interfere in
the Union’s internal affairs.
WE WILL NOT delay provision of or fail to provide
relevant and necessary information requested by the Un-
ion concerning our employees’ health benefit costs.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our employees, in
the bargaining unit set forth below, by unilaterally
changing the open enrollment period for employee health
benefits and unilaterally implementing a proposal to off-
set a 20-cent increase in hourly fringe benefits with a
corresponding decrease in wages.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
set forth above.
WE WILL rescind our unilaterally implemented pro-
posal to offset a 20-cent increase in hourly fringe bene-
fits with a corresponding decrease in wages.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, rescind our uni-
lateral changes to the open enrollment period for em-
ployee health benefits.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested on July 17, 2003 regarding health benefit costs
for our employees.
WE WILL make our employees whole, with interest, for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re-
sult of the unlawful actions taken by us.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in the following bargaining unit:
B & B TRUCKING 3
All regular full-time, new hire full-time, and regular
part-time truck drivers of B & B Trucking, Inc.
B & B TRUCKING, INC.
Steven E. Carlson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard A. Hooker, Esq., for the Respondent.
James Brumfield, Rep., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JANE VANDEVENTER, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried on June 23 and 24, 2004, in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The complaint alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act by dealing directly with bargaining unit employ-
ees represented by the Charging Party. The complaint also
alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
by failing and refusing to provide relevant and necessary in-
formation to the Charging Party Union. In addition, the com-
plaint alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act by unilaterally implementing a change in employees’
wages and benefits, as well as a change in the health care bene-
fits, without notifying the Union or affording the Union an
opportunity to bargain with respect to the changes and their
effects. Finally, the complaint alleges Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering in the Union’s internal
ratification vote procedures, criticizing the Union and encour-
aging employees to change their representative and to adopt
changes in the Union’s internal rules and structure. The Re-
spondent filed an answer denying the essential allegations in
the complaint. After the conclusion of the hearing, the parties
filed briefs which I have read.
Based on the testimony of the witnesses, including particu-
larly my observation of their demeanor while testifying, the
documentary evidence, and the entire record, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a corporation with an office and place of busi-
ness in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where it is engaged in the inter-
state transportation of United States mail, under various con-
tracts with the United States Postal Service (USPS). During a
representative 1-year period, Respondent provided services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to the United States Postal
Service for the interstate transportation of mail. The United
States Postal Service is directly engaged in interstate com-
merce. Accordingly, I find, as Respondent admits, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Charging Party (the Union) is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Background
Respondent’s business is primarily that of a carrier of United
States mail. Under approximately 30 “route contracts,” Re-
spondent transports mail between designated cities. Each inter-
city route is the subject of a separate contract between Respon-
dent and the USPS. These contracts are bid at various intervals.
They normally have durations of 4 years, but they expire on
various dates. Respondent’s main terminal is at Kalamazoo,
but it also has smaller terminals at Ft. Wayne, Michigan, De-
troit, Michigan, Chicago, Illinois, Syracuse, New York, and
Sarasota, Florida. There are about 115 drivers based at these
locations. Respondent employs about 150 employees alto-
gether. Nonbargaining unit employees include mechanics,
office staff, supervisors, and managers.
Terry Keller is the president of respondent, Teresa Porter is
the chief operations officer, Tom Rollins is the human re-
sources director, and Jennifer Blackburn is the finance director.
In addition, Tom Cole, a management consultant, assists Re-
spondent with various aspects of its business. All are admitted
agents of Respondent, and all except Cole are admitted supervi-
sors.
B & B Trucking Inc. Employees Association (the Union) has
been the representative of the driver employees of Respondent
since 1969. The Union is a small independent union made up
solely of driver employees of Respondent. It has no office, no
paid officers, no paid staff, and no dues. The officers are
elected at irregular intervals by the driver employees. The Un-
ion’s president at the time of the events in question was James
Brumfield.
The current collective-bargaining agreement was signed on
April 11, 2000, and was revised on August 2, 2002. It is effec-
tive through July 1, 2005. It includes an annual reopener provi-
sion for July 1 of each year for the renegotiation of benefits.
The route contracts are subject to the Service Contract Act, and
periodically the United States Department of Labor issues a
“wage determination,” which specifies the minimum amount
the drivers in a particular region must be paid hourly. The
amount is allocated to wages as well as to other benefits. Sub-
sequent to the issuance of wage determinations, it has been
usual for the Employer and the Union to negotiate, using the
wage determination as a base. In order for any increase in
wages or fringe benefits to become paid to the Employer, the
parties must submit their collective-bargaining agreement to the
Department of Labor. After submission to the Department of
Labor and the Postal Service, the new rates are incorporated
into the route contracts.
For a year or more preceding June 30, 2003, Respondent had
been a self-insurer for medical and health care costs. Respon-
dent found that being a self-insurer was unpredictable and ex-
pensive. For the period beginning July 1, 2003, Respondent
decided to purchase health care insurance from Blue
Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan. Respondent’s decision to
change from self-insured status to the use of Blue Cross/Blue
Shield health care insurance is not in issue herein.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
2. Events surrounding the 2003 contract
reopener negotiations
In March 2003, the Department of Labor issued a wage de-
termination for the drivers in the Michigan area, increasing the
fringe benefit rate by 20-cents-per-hour.1 The parties met on
June 9, 2003,2 pursuant to the July 1 contract reopener, to nego-
tiate. Under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, the
fringe benefit amount was paid directly to the drivers in their
paychecks. The drivers were responsible for paying a portion
of their health care premiums and contributing to a 401(k) plan.
On June 9, Respondent proposed that the increase of 20 cents
be retained by Respondent in order to offset what it said were
increased health care costs. Respondent stated that if the Union
agreed to this arrangement, it would “not consider changing
plan coverage or increasing employee contributions without
employee agreement” for a year. The Union wanted to consult
with the drivers about the proposal, and proceeded to poll them
on the issue.
Respondent, meanwhile, sent a notice in late June to the
drivers describing Respondent’s proposal and asserting that it
expected to spend $400,000 on health care costs during 2003.
On July 17, the Union sent a letter to Respondent requesting
information on Respondent’s asserted costs for health care, and
requested that the costs be “broken down per person.”
Brumfield testified that the Union wanted to see how much of
the Respondent’s claimed health care costs were being spent for
bargaining unit employees. He further testified that the drivers
were concerned as to whether their contributions were going to
be used to subsidize the health care costs for nonbargaining unit
employees. No response to the Union’s request for information
was received for 5 weeks.
On July 25, Respondent sent ballots to the drivers along with
a notice from Keller telling them that Respondent’s proposal to
retain the 20-cent fringe benefit increase would be effective
unless a majority of the drivers rejected it using the enclosed
ballot within the next 6 days. The Union sent a letter to Re-
spondent on August 1 objecting to its direct solicitation of em-
ployees’ votes on the issue, stating that the parties were still
negotiating, and that the Union was waiting for a response to its
information request. The Union stated to Respondent that its
actions were undermining the Union as bargaining representa-
tive. Again, Respondent made no response to the Union.
Respondent did, however, communicate directly with em-
ployees again, mandating their attendance at meetings held by
Respondent to explain its proposal to retain the 20-cent fringe
benefit increase.
Respondent and the Union met for bargaining on August 22.
During that meeting, Respondent’s financial officer, Blackburn,
showed the union representatives certain documents concerning
Respondent’s health care costs. These documents consisted of
certain summaries of benefit costs in the form of charts. Accord-
ing to the testimony of Respondent’s witness Blackburn, she had

1 The wage determination hourly fringe benefit rate had been $2.68
per hour, and was raised in March 2003 to $2.88 per hour. This would
mean a weekly increase for each driver of $8, as the fringe benefit
payment is capped at 40 hours per week.
2 All dates hereafter will be in 2003, unless otherwise specified.
made these calculations in May. Respondent offered no explana-
tion for not providing these documents to the Union in response
to its July 17 information request. The summaries of Respon-
dent’s benefit costs did not break down the health care costs of
Respondent by bargaining unit, and nonbargaining unit costs, but
only on a companywide basis. The information shown to the
Union would not enable it to calculate average per person costs,
especially in light of the fact that some employees were on a
single person health plan, while others had family coverage.
Blackburn testified that Respondent had the information neces-
sary to derive such averages and per person costs, but she admit-
ted that Respondent had never provided the information to the
Union. Another ambiguity in the information shown to the Un-
ion on August 22 derived from the fact that much of it was based
on Respondent’s past experience with its self-insured plan. This
information was therefore of little or no value in evaluating Re-
spondent’s costs under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan which
was then in effect.
It is undisputed that the Union requested that Respondent
provide the Union with copies of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield
billing statements concerning health insurance, and that these
were not provided to the Union until April 16, 2004. The first
of these statements became available to Respondent at least by
August 12, 2003.
In late September, the Union sought input from the bargain-
ing unit employees concerning Respondent’s proposed health
care benefits change, and learned that the majority of drivers
opposed the change. Brumfield, the Union’s president, in-
formed Rollins of the drivers’ opposition to the change, and
requested another bargaining meeting. The requested meeting
never took place. On October 24, Respondent announced that
it had implemented its proposed health benefits change.
Rollins testified that Respondent believed, on the basis of its
own polling of employees and subsequent meetings with em-
ployees, that a majority of the employees favored Respondent’s
proposal.
Respondent claims that it believed it was at impasse with the
Union over the benefits issue on October 24. Respondent ad-
mits, however, that it made the decision to implement the bene-
fits change in August. Respondent also decided to change the
health insurance enrollment “open” period from January to
July, with one additional “open” period in September 2003.
This change was announced by Respondent on August 27.
Respondent admits that it did not notify the Union of this
change in advance of announcing and implementing the
change.
Thereafter, on December 3, Respondent sent letters to em-
ployees in which it stated that meetings would be held to dis-
cuss the “election of future driver representatives,” and the
possibility of “instituting a set of by-laws outlining election
procedures, term limits, voting rights and other formal policies”
for the Union, and mentioning the possibility of a dues struc-
ture. The letter further implied that the employees’ current
union representatives did not have “the time, know-how, [and]
tools” necessary to “reach agreement” with Respondent.
B & B TRUCKING 5
B. Discussion and Analysis
1. Direct dealing, disparagement, and interference
It is well settled that an employer must deal with employees’
collective-bargaining representative concerning wages, hours,
and working conditions, and must not ignore or bypass the
Union and deal directly with employees in a way which is
likely to erode the union’s position as exclusive representative.
Allied-Signal, Inc., 307 NLRB 752, 753 (1992). As was stated
in that case, “going behind the back of the exclusive bargaining
representative to seek the input of employees on a proposed
change in working conditions . . . plainly erodes the position of
the designated representative.” Furthermore, the proper func-
tioning of the collective-bargaining system requires that em-
ployees’ representatives be independent, able to advance em-
ployees’ interests and to conduct arms-length bargaining with
an employer. An employer may not interfere with a union’s
internal affairs and thereby attempt to interfere with or under-
mine its independence.
Respondent’s polling of its employees in July and holding of
meetings with them in early August clearly tended to under-
mine the Union’s position as exclusive representative. Respon-
dent was well aware that the Union itself was consulting with
the employees over the proposed health benefits change. Re-
spondent’s conduct had exactly the ill effects foretold in Allied-
Signal. Respondent relied on its own opinions of employee
sentiment garnered from the poll and meetings as a self-
justification for making its unilateral change. I find that Re-
spondent’s conduct in conducting a direct poll of employees
and holding meetings with them to solicit their views on bar-
gaining, especially while failing to provide the Union with
information which it needed in order to continue bargaining
about the proposal, certainly bypassed the Union and tended to
undermine the Union. I find that Respondent’s direct dealing
with employees violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Respondent’s course of conduct in treating the Union as a
cipher continued in its arrogant December letter to employees
proposing that they elect different union officers and draw up
formal internal by-laws, with Respondent’s help! Respondent’s
letter clearly implied that it intended to be involved in proposed
meetings for these purposes. Respondent’s proposed insertion
of itself into the internal affairs of the Union violates a basic
tenet of the collective-bargaining system, and violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Armored Transport, Inc., 339 NLRB 374
(2003).
2. Failure to provide information
The information requested by the Union concerned the Re-
spondent’s cost of providing health care benefits. It related
solely to bargaining unit employees, and related directly to
Respondent’s bargaining proposal. Thus, under settled Board
law, the requested information was presumptively relevant. By
delaying providing any information at all for over 5 weeks,
delaying other requested information (the Blue Cross/Blue
Shield costs) for approximately 9 months, and never providing
some requested information at all (the cost of health insurance
for bargaining unit employees), Respondent certainly violated
its duty to furnish necessary information to the Union. I find
that Respondent’s conduct in failing to furnish information and
delaying the furnishing of information to the Union violates
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. See, e.g., V & S Schuler Engineer-
ing, 332 NLRB 1243, 1244 (2000); Beverly Health & Rehabili-
tation Services, 328 NLRB 959, 963 (1999); JRED Enterprises,
Inc., 313 NLRB 1244 fns. 1 and 2 (1994).
3. Unilateral changes
Board law requires that during contract negotiations, an em-
ployer may not unilaterally implement changes or proposals
unless the union agrees to the implementation, or the union has
had notice of the changes and an opportunity to bargain about
the subject. Maple Grove Health Care, 330 NLRB 775, 779
(2000). In the absence of agreement, an employer may imple-
ment its proposed changes only after a complete impasse in
contract negotiations. In this case, the parties were actually
engaged in bargaining about the proposal. Respondent pre-
vented that bargaining from following its normal course by
failing to provide necessary information to the Union and by
dealing directly with employees. Respondent committed two
unfair labor practices which directly impeded the normal pro-
gress of negotiations. Thus, no lawful impasse could have been
reached. Circuit-Wise, Inc., 309 NLRB 905, 918 (1992). Re-
spondent actually made the decision to implement its benefits
change in August, even before its alleged “impasse” with the
Union on October 24. Respondent communicated its decision
to the USPS, and the Department of Labor in accordance with
its contract obligations, apparently leading those agencies to
believe that Respondent already had the agreement of the Un-
ion to its proposal. Respondent did not inform the Union of the
implementation of the benefits change until late October. In
addition, Respondent changed the “open” enrollment periods
for health benefits admittedly without notifying the Union and
without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain about the
enrollment periods. Both these actions constitute unlawful
conduct by Respondent. I find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally implementing changes in
the health benefits reimbursement, and by unilaterally changing
the enrollment periods for health insurance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By disparaging the Union, advising employees to change
their representatives, and seeking to interfere in the Union’s
internal affairs, Respondent has undermined the Union and
interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights, and has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By delaying provision of and failing to provide relevant
and necessary information concerning bargaining unit employ-
ees health benefit costs, as requested by the Union, Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
3. By making changes to health benefit programs and pay
unilaterally, without affording the Union notice or an opportu-
nity to bargain about the changes, Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. By dealing directly with employees, and bypassing the
Union, their collective-bargaining representative, Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
5. The violations set forth above are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be required to cease
and desist therefrom, to provide the Union with the requested
information concerning per person health benefit costs for bar-
gaining unit employees, to rescind the unilateral changes to
wages, and to take certain affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to make
whole all bargaining unit employees for any loss of earnings or
benefits they may have suffered due to the unlawful unilateral
changes, in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), plus interest as computed in accordance with New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).3
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]

3 The record evidence did not show whether the drivers at the Sara-
sota, Florida terminal of Respondent are a part of the bargaining unit.
The General Counsel contends that this issue need not be determined in
order to resolve the unfair labor practice issues herein. I agree. If the
parties differ as to the scope of the bargaining unit, the proper course
would be the filing of a petition for unit clarification.