Caterpillar, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 5, 2012

30-CA-064314 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 5, 2012)

JD(ATL)–20–12
Milwaukee, WI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
CATERPILLAR INC.1
and CASE 30-CA-64314
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY,
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO/CLC
Benjamin Mandelman and Rachel A. Centinario, Esqs.,
for the Acting General Counsel.
Joseph J. Torres, Derek G. Barella and
Elizabeth J. Kappakas, Esqs. (Winston & Strawn, LLP),
for the Respondent.
Marianne Goldstein Robbins, Esq.
(Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller &
Brueggeman, S.C.),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, on March 21 and 22, 2012. On September 12, 2011,2 the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO/CLC (the Union) filed the underlying charge. The resulting complaint alleged
that Caterpillar Inc. (Caterpillar or the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by refusing to grant a non-employee Union
representative access to its Milwaukee, Wisconsin manufacturing facility, in order to conduct a
health and safety inspection.

1 Respondent’s correct legal name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 All dates herein are in 2011, unless otherwise stated.
JD(ATL)–20–12
2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after thoroughly considering the parties’ briefs, I make the following
Findings of Fact
5
I. Jurisdiction
At all material times, Caterpillar has manufactured mining equipment at its South
Milwaukee, Wisconsin plant (the facility). Annually, in conducting its operations, it sells and
ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its facility to customers located outside of 10
the State of Wisconsin. Based upon the foregoing, it admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. It also admits,
and I find, that the Union is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practice15
A. Introduction
The core facts involved herein are essentially undisputed. Caterpillar manufactures strip
mining equipment at its South Milwaukee facility.3 The production of such equipment involves 20
large-scale metal cutting, fabrication, machining, welding, painting and assembly.4 The facility,
which is roughly 5 “city blocks” long, has been in business since the early 1900s. Caterpillar
very recently purchased the facility from Bucyrus International Inc. (Bucyrus) on July 9.
B. Union’s Representation of the Unit25
Since 1986, the Union, and its constituent entity, Local 1343, have served as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the following appropriate unit (the unit):
All production and maintenance employees employed . . . at . . . [the] South 30
Milwaukee, Wisconsin facility, including all individuals working as powerhouse
employees, lead men, but excluding general administrative, office and
confidential employees, garage and laboratory employees, technically trained
engineers, draftsmen, and all miscellaneous engineering department employees,
clerical employees in stock, stores, and production departments (which 35
departments include shop clerks, expeditors, timekeepers), industrial and
standards engineers, registered nurses, and all guards and supervisors as defined
by the Act. 5
(GC Exh. 26). Caterpillar and Bucyrus, its predecessor, have continuously recognized the Union 40
and Local 1343 as the unit’s exclusive collective-bargaining representative. This recognition has
been embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which extends
from December 9, 2008 through April 30, 2013. (Id.).

3 It produces large trucks, which carry away rock and soil that is unearthed during strip mining procedures.
4 Products are shipped in sub-assembled pieces, which are subsequently assembled at the mining site.
5 There are approximately 900 employees in the unit.
JD(ATL)–20–12
3
C. September 8 Fatality
On September 8, in the afternoon, Jeffrey Smith, a unit employee, was crushed to death
by a multi-ton crawler,6 while working in the facility’s welding area. The fatality was promptly
reported to the Milwaukee Police Department (the Police) and the U.S. Department of Labor, 5
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), who each commenced investigations.
Kevin Jaskie, Local 1343 President and unit employee, testified that he also promptly
reported Smith’s fatality to the Union’s Emergency Response Team (ERT), which is a squad that
provides accident investigation services to constituent locals.7 See (GC Exh. 27). He explained 10
that he contacted the ERT because Local 1343’s staff was unqualified to independently
investigate the fatality.8 He stated that, shortly thereafter, ERT member Sharon Thompson
committed to traveling to the facility and conducting an investigation.9 He added that he
subsequently relayed Local 1343’s plan to have the ERT conduct an onsite investigation to
Regional Manager Rod Bolhous, who pledged Caterpillar’s full cooperation.10 15
Later that evening, Caterpillar conducted a re-enactment of the fatal accident. Although
the re-enactment was witnessed by corporate officials, OSHA, the Police and County Medical
Examiner, Local 1343’s highest officials were not informed and were, consequently, absent.11
20
D. September 9 Events
On September 9, ERT member Thompson arrived at the facility, in order to conduct her
onsite investigation into the fatality. She stated that, after describing the purpose of her visit to
Caterpillar’s representatives, she was denied entry by Bolhous and other officials.12 25
E. September 16 Letter
On September 16, 2011, Caterpillar sent the following letter to the Union:
30
[Concerning] . . . the Union's request to access the . . . facility . . . in order to
conduct . . . a “joint investigation” of the workplace accident that occurred . . . on
September 8 . . . . (1) the Company was cooperating . . . with OSHA's and local
law enforcement's investigation of the incident . . .; (2) our current collective
bargaining agreement does not provide for an additional joint investigation . . . .; 35
(3) in light of the ongoing investigations by OSHA and law enforcement, the
Company [does] . . . not believe an additional joint investigation would be
productive, particularly given the facts that the facility is operating again

6 The crawler, which weighed 90,000 pounds, is similar to the track propulsion device on bulldozers and tanks.
7 In 2011, the ERT investigated 39 fatalities.
8 Michael Dobrzynski, Local 1343 Vice-President and David Uebele, Chief Steward corroborated this testimony.
9 Thompson, a Resource Technician Health and Safety Specialist, is assigned to the Union’s Pittsburgh, PA
headquarters. She has extensive experience in accident investigation and industrial safety. (GC Exh. 29).
10 Dobrzynski corroborated this account.
11 Chief Steward Uebele was the highest ranking Local 1343 official in attendance.
12 Bolhous stated that he reversed his position on ERT access, after he realized that, although Bucyrus would have
left this matter to his discretion, Caterpillar required him to seek corporate approval before granting such access.
JD(ATL)–20–12
4
and the equipment at issue has since been moved (i.e., the “scene” of the
incident is no longer in the same condition as at the time of the incident). . . .
(G.C. Exh. 3) (emphasis added).
5
F. Ongoing Correspondence and Confidentiality Agreement Covering DVD Footage
The September 16 letter triggered a series of letters between the parties, which clarified
their respective stances on access. On September 26, Union counsel explained the ERT’s goals.
((GC Exh. 4) (“Union has requested access . . . in order to understand what went wrong and to 10
address through the Health and Safety Committee or the grievance procedure means of
preventing any similar accident in the future.”). On October 10, Caterpillar’s counsel re-denied
access, but, offered to provide DVD footage of the accident re-enactment, subject to the
negotiation of a confidentiality agreement. (GC Exh. 5). On October 17, Union counsel re-
requested access and indicated that, “the . . . ‘reenactment’ was not adequate and does not 15
obviate the need for an onsite investigation.” (GC Exh. 6). On November 15, Caterpillar’s
counsel explained:
Caterpillar considers its manufacturing and operational processes to be
proprietary and confidential business information.20
(GC Exh. 7). On November 22, Union counsel replied:
[T]he Union is willing to enter into a confidentiality agreement, however, receipt
of the video will not take the place of an onsite investigation . . . .25
(GC Exh. 8). Between December 8 and late-January 2012, the parties negotiated a
confidentiality agreement, which resulted in the production of the DVD. (GC Exhs. 9-10, 21-24)
G. January 19, 2012 Information Request30
On January 19, 2012, Jaskie sent an e-mail to Labor Relations Manager John Hubert,
which requested certain additional information concerning the fatality:
 . . . [T]he investigatory file prepared by the local law enforcement . . . .35
 Photographs taken . . . during the post-accident investigation.
 Video recording of the post-accident reenactment.
 Copies of the old standard work order for the crawler frame turning
procedure, and the new procedure developed by the committee.
40
(GC Exh. 12).
JD(ATL)–20–12
5
H. Actions Regarding the Union’s January 19, 2012 Information Request
On February 14, 2012, Caterpillar responded:
1. Enclosed are . . . two video recordings . . . of the reenactment of 5
the crawler frame turning operation that took place as part of the
post-accident investigation on September 8, 2011. These video
recordings are produced subject to the Confidential Information
Agreement . . . . [See (GC Exh. 32).]13
10
2. [E]nclosed is . . . the investigation file . . . compiled by the local
law enforcement officers . . . . This is a complete copy of the file,
. . . with the exception of copies of certain Standard-Work
protocols . . . which we have removed from the copy that is
enclosed with this letter. [W]e are willing to produce these 15
Standard Work protocols . . . subject to the parties' . . . agreement
concerning confidentiality.
In addition to the materials produced with this letter, we . . . are prepared to
produce . . . a number of additional materials that the Company considers to be 20
confidential. Caterpillar's counsel has proposed . . . that the enclosed Confidential
Information Agreement also apply to these additional materials . . . . These
additional materials that are ready to be produced to you are . . . :
1. Copies of the Standard Work protocols . . . in effect as of 25
September 8, 2011 (including those that were included in the
police investigation file), as well as the Standard Work protocols
that have since been revised and reissued . . . .
2. Copies of all photographs taken by the Company during the post-30
accident investigation on September 8, 2011. . . .
(GC Exh. 14); see also (GC Exh. 15). The parties, thereafter, entered into another confidentiality
agreement covering the Standard Work protocols and photos, and these materials were,
thereafter, produced to the Union. (GC Exhs. 16-19, 25). 35

13 Following the record’s closure, the parties filed a joint motion to reopen the record, in order to receive JT Exhs
1-2 into evidence. The motion is denied. First, unlike GC Exh. 32, which is a readable DVD, JT Exhs. 1-2 are
neither readable, when played on a standard DVD player, nor readable when played on standard computer
applications (e.g. Windows Media Player and Quick Time Player). Second, the parties failed to demonstrate
that JT Exhs. 1-2 constituted “newly discovered evidence,” which would warrant reopening the record. See
Planned Building Services, 347 NLRB 670, 670 fn. 2 (2006). To the contrary, their joint motion stated that JT
Exhs. 1-2 are “copies of the recordings that Caterpillar produced to the Union on January 28, 2012 and February
14, 2012,” which, thus, was not “newly discovered evidence” that would merit reopening the record.
JD(ATL)–20–12
6
I. Non-Employees Accessing the Facility
Jaskie testified that, before the fatality, Caterpillar and its predecessor, Bucyrus,
frequently allowed visitors to enter the facility. He recollected: Union representatives being
admitted for labor relations matters; public groups touring the facility; a political dinner 5
connected to a mining bill; Senator John McCain visiting during the 2008 Presidential campaign;
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett campaigning there; and periodic high school recruiting tours.
Bolhous acknowledged that Caterpillar conducts customer, employee and student tours at
the facility. He recounted politicians and civic groups periodically visiting. He stated that 10
neither the product line made at the facility, nor the underlying manufacturing procedures, have
changed significantly since Caterpillar purchased the facility from Bucyrus, and reported that the
risks associated with outsiders entering the facility have not changed a great deal over the years.
He noted that the area where the fatality occurred is often viewed during tours.
15
J. March 8, 2012 - OSHA Citation
On March 8, 2012, OSHA issued a citation to Caterpillar for failing to “furnish
employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were . . .
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees from crashing hazards.” 20
(GC Exh. 28). The citation required Caterpillar to, inter alia, pay a $7,000 fine. (Id.).
K. Parties’ Positions Concerning Access
1. Union’s Purpose in Seeking Access25
The Union asserted that, absent Caterpillar granting it access to the facility, the ERT was
unable to complete an adequate investigation concerning the fatality. Thompson explained that,
although Caterpillar ultimately provided the Union with limited information about the accident
(i.e. a short DVD recording of its operations, photos and other documents), these materials were 30
deficient. She added that such information paled in comparison to the data, which she would
have derived during an onsite observation.14 She noted that the DVD recording was deficient
because it: failed to cover several relevant vantage points; did not sufficiently demonstrate depth,
distance, sound, material properties and other key characteristics; and omitted a panoramic view
of the relevant welding operations.15 She indicated that the Police’s investigatory report 35
similarly failed to identify the root cause of the fatality, and Local 1343’s staff was unqualified
to perform an independent accident investigation. She stated that, in spite of Caterpillar’s lack of
cooperation, she prepared a report, which discussed the accident, but, failed to reach any
dispositive conclusions regarding causation.16 (GC Exh. 30). She noted that Caterpillar was the
first company, which refused to grant her access following a fatality. 40

14 Caterpillar failed to produce an expert, or other witness, who refuted her claim that an onsite visit was required.
15 She estimated that the DVD recording was approximately a minute in length.
16 She acknowledged, on cross-examination, that Jim Novak, another Union official, prepared a report describing
the accident and identifying potential causes. See (R. Exh. 1). She contended, however, that his report’s
findings were partially unsupported, given that he never performed an onsite inspection. She added that, even
after reviewing Novak’s report, she still needed to perform an onsite inspection.
JD(ATL)–20–12
7
Thompson contended that, if she had been granted access, she would have carefully
studied the crane operations connected to the fatality. She asserted that her investigation would
not have affected workplace operations, and would have only been a couple of hours in length.
She related that she would have obtained permission before photographing the worksite, in order
to protect Caterpillar’s proprietary interests. She noted that ERT investigatory reports are 5
generally not made public, and are solely submitted to the local union and employer. She
averred that the ERT has often successfully determined causation.
2. Caterpillar’s Rationale
10
Caterpillar offered two reasons for its denial of access. First, it asserted that the Union
had previously received extensive materials connected to the fatality, which rendered the access
request redundant. (GC Exh. 3). Second, it contended that it denied access, in order to maintain
the confidentiality of its manufacturing procedures. Labor Relations Manager Hubert explained
that Caterpillar was concerned that, if the Union received access, it might have shared 15
Caterpillar’s manufacturing secrets with Joy Global Surface Mining, which is one of its main
competitors in the strip mining market. He added that Joy Global Surface Mining was of
particular concern because it is also located in Milwaukee and its employees are represented by
the Union. Bolhous added that specialized welding techniques are utilized in the area where the
fatality occurred, which, if leaked, would benefit Caterpillar’s competition.20
III. Analysis
Caterpillar violated Section 8(a)(5), when it failed to grant the Union access to the facility
in connection with the September 8 fatality.17 Generally, an employer must provide requested 25
information to a union representing its employees, whenever there is a probability that such
information is necessary and relevant to its representational duties. See NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956). This duty
encompasses the obligation to provide relevant bargaining and grievance-processing materials.
See Postal Service, 337 NLRB 820, 822 (2002). The standard for relevancy is a “liberal 30
discovery-type standard,” and the sought-after evidence should solely have a bearing upon the
disputed issue. See Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916 (1984).
Information, which concerns unit terms and conditions of employment is “so intrinsic to
the core of the employer-employee relationship” that it is presumptively relevant. York 35
International Corp., 290 NLRB 438 (1988). Concerning health and safety, the Board has held:
Health and safety matters regarding the unit employees' workplaces are of vital
interest to the employees and are, thus, generally relevant and necessary for the
union to carry out its bargaining obligations . . . . Few matters can be of greater 40
legitimate concern.
Detroit Newspaper Agency, 317 NLRB 1071 (1995); see also American National Can Co., 293
NLRB 901, 904 (1989) (health and safety matters are mandatory subjects of bargaining). When
45

17 These allegations are listed under paras. 7 and 8 of the complaint.
JD(ATL)–20–12
8
material is presumptively relevant, the burden shifts to the company to establish a lack of
relevance. Newspaper Guild Local 95 (San Diego) v. NLRB, 548 F. 2d 863, 867 (9th Cir. 1977).
In information cases where a union seeks access to an employer’s plant, the Board
employs a two-part balancing test, which balances the right of employees to be responsibly 5
represented by their union, against the right of the employer to control its property and ensure
that its operations are unhindered. Holyoke Water Power Co., 273 NLRB 1369, 1370 (1985).
In applying this test, the Board has frequently found that a union’s right to access a plant to
inspect or survey for hazardous health and safety conditions outweighs the employer’s property
interests. See, e.g., C.C.E., Inc., 318 NLRB 977 (1995); Gilberton Coal Co., 291 NLRB 344, 10
347 (1988); Hercules, Inc., 281 NLRB 961, 969 (1986). Regarding the relatively unparalleled
value of an onsite health and safety inspection, the Board has held that:
[T]here can be no adequate substitute for the Union representative’s direct
observation of the plant equipment and conditions, and employee operations and 15
working conditions, in order to evaluate . . . safety concerns . . . .
C.C.E., Inc., supra, 318 NLRB at 978; see also ASARCO, Inc., 276 NLRB 1367, 1370 (1985).
In applying the Holyoke balancing test, I find that the Union’s right to access the facility 20
outweighed Caterpillar’s property interests. In weighing the Union’s interests, I note that the
Board heavily favors access rights, where such rights are being exercised by a union in order to
promote a unit’s legitimate health and safety interests. The Union herein critically needed to
enter the facility, in order to directly observe the manufacturing area, where a fatality occurred.
A conclusive finding on causation would have permitted the Union to enter into an intelligent 25
dialogue with Caterpillar regarding ways to enhance workplace safety, and could have ultimately
prevented another senseless tragedy. Given that Caterpillar, OSHA and the Police failed to
pinpoint an exact cause behind the fatality, the Union maintained a heightened interest in the
ERT performing a comprehensive onsite inspection. Additionally, Thompson persuasively
demonstrated that the accident investigation materials that Caterpillar previously submitted to the 30
Union were deficient, and an onsite survey remained necessary.18 The Union, as a result,
maintained a substantial representational interest in conducting an onsite inspection, and had no
alternative methodology to obtain comparable safety-related information regarding the fatality.
In assessing Caterpillar’s interests, I am mindful that Caterpillar held a significant 35
competing interest in protecting against the potential dissemination of its confidential
manufacturing procedures, as well as an interest in preventing visitors from interfering with its
operations. In finding that the Union’s access rights outweighed these competing interests, I
relied upon the following factors: (1) Caterpillar failed to carry its burden of showing that there
were alternative means available to the Union, which would have permitted it to effectively 40
represent the unit on this key safety issue; (2) Thompson, an experienced ERT member, credibly
testified that she would not have interfered with production during her survey; (3) Caterpillar’s
property interest was lessened to a degree by a considerable history of permitting non-employee

18 While Caterpillar provided photographs, reports, Standard Work protocols and DVD evidence, this material is a
poor substitute for the information that might have been obtained during an onsite survey. For example, the
DVD (i.e. GC Exh. 32) is two dimensional, and limited to the angles, distance and duration that the non-expert
filmmaker considered relevant, and is, thus, a poor substitute for a three dimensional onsite inspection.
JD(ATL)–20–12
9
visitors to access the facility (e.g., politicians, civic groups, high school students and
customers);19 and (4) Caterpillar’s interest in protecting its confidential manufacturing
procedures could have been addressed by negotiating a separate confidentiality agreement with
the Union concerning the inspection. Moreover, given that the parties successfully negotiated
similar agreements regarding the DVD, Workplace protocols and other documents, there is no 5
reason why an analogous agreement could not have been negotiated regarding access.
The Holyoke balancing test, thus, tips in favor of access. Accordingly, the parties shall
bargain in good faith concerning appropriate safeguards, which will dually protect Caterpillar’s
confidentiality concerns, while also facilitating a comprehensive onsite safety survey. See 10
Roseburg Forest Products Co., 331 NLRB 999, 1003 (2000).
Conclusions of Law
1. Caterpillar is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 15
2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Union is, and, at all material times, was the exclusive bargaining 20
representative for the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed at Caterpillar’s
South Milwaukee, Wisconsin facility, including all individuals working as
powerhouse employees, lead men, but excluding general administrative, 25
office and confidential employees, garage and laboratory employees,
technically trained engineers, draftsmen, and all miscellaneous
engineering department employees, clerical employees in stock, stores,
and production departments (which departments include shop clerks,
expeditors, timekeepers), industrial and standards engineers, registered 30
nurses, and all guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
4. Caterpillar violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by denying the Union's
request to access its facility, in order to conduct a health and safety inspection, which was
relevant to the discharge of its representational duties, without first bargaining in good faith with 35
the Union concerning appropriate confidentiality safeguards associated with such access.
5. The unfair labor practice set forth above affects commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
40
Remedy
Having found that Caterpillar committed an unfair labor practice, it must be ordered to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the

19 Although most of these visitors entered under Bucyrus’ regime, Bolhous credibly testified that the proprietary
risks and potential interferences associated with such visits have not changed since Caterpillar’s takeover.
JD(ATL)–20–12
10
Act. As stated, it must grant the Union access to its facility, subject to certain limitations.
Specifically, it must bargain in good faith with the Union over its legitimate confidentiality
concerns and reduce the resulting agreement to writing, prior to granting such access.20 It shall
also distribute appropriate remedial notices electronically via email, intranet, internet, or other
appropriate electronic means to unit employees at the facility, in addition to the traditional 5
physical posting of paper notices. See J Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended21
10
ORDER
The Respondent, Caterpillar Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
15
1. Cease and desist from
a. Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees in the unit described below by
denying its request to access the facility, in order to conduct a health and safety inspection.20
b. In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, 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 25
Act
a. Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the
exclusive representative of employees in the following appropriate unit concerning their request
to access the facility to conduct a health and safety inspection, embody any resulting 30
understanding in a signed agreement and, thereafter, comply with the terms of such agreement:
All production and maintenance employees employed at Caterpillar’s
South Milwaukee, Wisconsin facility, including all individuals working as
powerhouse employees, lead men, but excluding general administrative, 35
office and confidential employees, garage and laboratory employees,
technically trained engineers, draftsmen, and all miscellaneous
engineering department employees, clerical employees in stock, stores,
and production departments (which departments include shop clerks,
expeditors, timekeepers), industrial and standards engineers, registered 40
nurses, and all guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.

20 The parties could expeditiously amend their earlier confidentiality agreements to address this issue.
21 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 purposes.
JD(ATL)–20–12
11
b. Within 14 days after service by the Region, physically post at its
Milwaukee, WI facility, and electronically send and post via email, intranet, internet, or other
electronic means to its unit employees who were employed at its Milwaukee, WI facility at any
time since September 9, 2011, copies of the attached Notice marked “Appendix.”22 Copies of
the Notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by the 5
Caterpillar’s authorized representative, shall be physically posted by Caterpillar 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 Caterpillar 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, Caterpillar has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these 10
proceedings, Caterpillar shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the Notice to all
current employees and former employees employed by it at the facility at any time since
September 9, 2011.
c. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director 15
a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that it has taken to comply.
Dated Washington, D.C. September 5, 2012
20
_________________________________
Robert A. Ringler 25
Administrative Law Judge

22 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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(ATL)–20–12
Milwaukee, WI
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 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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain in good faith with United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO/CLC (the Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in
the bargaining unit described below by refusing to grant it access to our facility, in order to
conduct a health and safety inspection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights set forth above.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
representative of employees in the following appropriate unit concerning their request to access
the facility in order conduct a health and safety inspection, and, thereafter, comply with the terms
of such agreement:
All production and maintenance employees employed at the South Milwaukee,
Wisconsin facility, including all individuals working as powerhouse employees,
lead men, but excluding general administrative, office and confidential
employees, garage and laboratory employees, technically trained engineers,
draftsmen, and all miscellaneous engineering department employees, clerical
employees in stock, stores, and production departments (which departments
include shop clerks, expeditors, timekeepers), industrial and standards engineers,
registered nurses, and all guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
CATERPILLAR INC.
(Employer)
Dated: ________________ By: ________________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
JD(ATL)–20–12
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 700, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2211
(414) 297-3861, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (414) 297-3819.