Champaign Builders Supply Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 7, 2014

25-CA-114095 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 7, 2014)

JD–46–14
Champaign, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
CHAMPAIGN BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY
and Case 25–CA–114095
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 26
Katherine E. Miller, Esq. and
Debra Stefanik, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
David L. Miller,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELISSA M. OLIVERO, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Peoria, Illinois, on
March 24, 2014. Teamsters Local Union No. 26 (the Union) filed the charge on September 24,
2013, and the General Counsel issued the complaint on January 31, 2014.1 (GC Exh. 1(a), (b),
(d).) The complaint alleges that Champaign Builders Supply Company (Respondent) violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union over the
effects of Respondent’s decision to close its business. (GC Exh. 1(d).) Respondent timely filed
an answer to the complaint denying the alleged violation of the Act. (GC Exh. 1(h).) The parties
were given a full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to file briefs. On the entire record,2 including my own observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses,3 and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and
Respondent, I make the following

1 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for transcript; “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s
Exhibit; “GC Exh.” for General Counsel’s Exhibit; “R. Br.” for Respondent’s Brief; and “GC Br.” for the
General Counsel’s Brief. The Charging Party did not file a brief.
2 I make the following correction to the transcript: Tr. 21, L. 22: “contractor” should be
“contract.”
3 Although I have included citations to the record to highlight particular testimony or exhibits, my
findings and conclusions are not based solely on those specific record citations, but rather on my review
and consideration of the entire record for this case. I further note that my findings of fact encompass the
credible testimony and evidence presented at trial, as well as logical inferences drawn therefrom.
JD–46–14
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
5
Respondent, a corporation, engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of concrete and
other building materials at its facility in Champaign, Illinois, where it annually purchased and
received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent 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 and that the Union is a labor organization within the 10
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Overview of Respondent’s Operations and Management Structure15
Respondent was a ready-mix concrete supplier to the construction industry, until it closed its
business in September 2013.4 (Tr. 16.) At all relevant times, Marsha Elliott was Respondent’s
director. At the hearing Respondent admitted, and I find, that Marsha Elliott was a supervisor of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and an agent of Respondent within 20
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. (Tr. 10–12.) Gloria Blager, Marsha Elliott’s mother,
was Respondent’s owner. (Tr. 13–14.) Lindsey Elliott, Marsha Elliott’s daughter, was also
employed by Respondent as a bookkeeper.5 (Tr. 21.)
At all relevant times, Curtis Eichen was Respondent’s sales manager and batchman. (Tr. 16.) 25
As sales manager, Eichen set up accounts, visited customers, and generated business for
Respondent. (Tr. 17.) As batchman, Eichen was responsible for the production of concrete. (Tr.
17.) Eichen’s other duties included dispatching, picking up mail, and making bank deposits.
(Tr. 17, 31.)
30
B. Respondent’s Collective-Bargaining Relationship with the Union
Since 1968, the Union had been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a unit
of Respondent’s employees. (GC Exh. 1(i).) This unit consisted of truck drivers, truck driver
helpers, warehousemen, general yardmen, loader drivers, and mechanics. (Id.) Respondent’s 35
most recent collective-bargaining agreement with the Union was effective from September 10,
2011, to September 9, 2014. (GC Exh. 3.) Marsha Elliott signed this collective-bargaining
agreement on behalf of Respondent. (Id.)
David Marxmiller has served as a vice president, business representative, and organizer for 40
the Union since April 2012. (Tr. 36–37.) Marxmiller’s uncontroverted testimony established
that Marsha Elliott was his only point of contact with Respondent regarding issues such as
seniority, overtime, and discipline. (Tr. 39.) By way of example, Marxmiller testified that he
spoke with Marsha Elliott over the phone in August to discuss the discharge of a unit employee.
(Tr. 39.) The employee’s termination letter was signed by Marsha Elliott. (GC Exh. 8.) 45

4 All dates are in 2013 unless otherwise indicated.
5 Marsha Elliot, Gloria Blager, and Lindsey Elliott were not called as witnesses at the hearing.
JD–46–14
3
Marxmiller subsequently filed a grievance over this termination and addressed it to Marsha
Elliott. (GC Exh. 9; Tr. 41.) Eichen received and signed for this grievance on behalf of
Respondent on September 5.6 (GC Exh. 9.)
C. Respondent’s Discussion of Its Decision to Close with the Union5
Sometime in 2013, Marxmiller began hearing rumors that Respondent’s business might
close. (Tr. 41–42.) Marxmiller tried to call Marsha Elliott about these rumors, but was unable to
reach her. (Tr. 42.)
10
On August 21, Marxmiller went to Respondent’s office and met with Marsha Elliott. (Tr. 42.)
The meeting took place in the front lobby area of Respondent’s office and lasted 15 to 30
minutes. (Tr. 54; 66–67.) Eichen observed parts of Marxmiller’s conversation with Marsha
Elliott, but he was also performing other work at the same time.7 (Tr. 54–55; 71–72.)
15
Marxmiller told Marsha Elliott that he had heard that Respondent’s business was closing and
said that he wished to engage in effects bargaining on behalf of the Union’s members. (Tr. 43.)
Marsha Elliott replied that nothing in the collective-bargaining agreement required her to engage
in effects bargaining. (Id.) Marxmiller reminded her that the parties’ contract remained in effect
until September 2014. (Tr. 44.) 20
Marsha Elliott told Marxmiller that she was starting to pay out vacation time. (Tr. 44; 69.)
She also stated that she was intending to pay out the last two bonuses as required by the contract.
(Tr. 69–70.) Marxmiller talked about extending healthcare coverage through September 2014, as
well as a severance package and bonus. (Id.) Marsha Elliott said that Respondent would cover 25
healthcare until the end of October, but added that it was not her decision to make. (Tr. 70.)
Marxmiller asked Marsha Elliott to get back to him when she had an answer or knew what was
going to happen. (Id.) No one took notes at this meeting and no proposals or agreements were
put in writing. (Tr. 45.)
30
On September 5, Marxmiller sent Respondent a certified letter seeking effects bargaining
over Respondent’s decision to close its business.8 (GC Exh. 6; Tr. 45.) It is undisputed that
Respondent was still doing business as of that date. (GC Exh. 10; Tr. 22.) Respondent did not
respond to Marxmiller’s letter. (Tr. 46.) Marxmiller attempted to reach Marsha Elliott by
telephone once or twice after he sent his letter. (Tr. 53.) Although Marxmiller left at least one35
voicemail message for Marsha Elliott, she did not respond. (Id.)

6 Eichen’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that Marsha Elliott specifically authorized him to
receive mail on behalf of Respondent. (Tr. 28.)
7 I credit Eichen’s testimony regarding what he observed during the conversation between Marxmiller
and Marsha Elliott. Although Eichen candidly admitted that he was in and out and doing other work
during the conversation, his testimony seemed forthright and honest. His testimony was not discredited in
any way on cross-examination and he testified in a steady manner. His testimony and that of Marxmiller
was similar in most respects. However, where Eichen’s testimony diverges from that of Marxmiller, I
credit Eichen.
8 Although Marxmiller’s letter was sent on September 5, it was not signed for by Lindsey Elliott until
October 19. (GC Exh. 6; Tr. 46.)
JD–46–14
4
D. Respondent Closes Its Business
During Respondent’s last month of operations, its employees were no longer delivering
concrete. The few employees that remained in September were involved in inventory, cleanup,
and maintenance activities. (Tr. 22.) Finally, around September 28, Marsha Elliott held a 5
meeting with Respondent’s employees and announced that there was no longer any work
available. (Tr. 22.)
The Union did not receive any sort of notification that Respondent had closed its business.
(Tr. 46–47.) In fact, Respondent never contacted Marxmiller at any time subsequent to 10
September 5. (Tr. 46.) In October 2013, Marxmiller drove by Respondent’s Champaign, Illinois
facility and found it closed. (Tr. 49.) A notice posted on the front door of the facility, signed by
Marsha Elliott, indicated that Respondent had ceased doing business. (GC Exh. 11.)
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS15
A. Witness Credibility
A credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors, including the context of the
witness’ testimony, the witness’ demeanor, the weight of the respective evidence, established or 20
admitted facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
record as a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi,
335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589
(1996)), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings need not be all-or-
nothing propositions—indeed, nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to 25
believe some, but not all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622. My
credibility findings are generally incorporated into the findings of fact set forth above.
I found Eichen’s testimony to be credible. He appeared certain in his responses to questions
on both direct and cross-examination. He did not appear to embellish his testimony. Eichen 30
candidly admitted that he did not hear the entire conversation of Marxmiller and Marsha Elliott
because he was doing other work. Furthermore, Eichen had nothing to gain by his testimony as
he was not a member of the bargaining unit.9 Given his candid and largely uncontradicted
testimony, I credit Eichen above other witnesses.
35
I found Marxmiller to be a generally credible witness. However, Marxmiller contradicted
himself on cross-examination. When asked why Marsha Elliott was paying out vacation time to
Respondent’s employees, Marxmiller testified that he did not know. A few moments later
Marxmiller admitted that she was paying out the vacation time because Respondent was closing
its business. (Tr. 56–57.) In addition, Marxmiller intimated on direct examination that he did not 40
know that Respondent had closed until he drove by in October. (Tr. 49.) Later, under cross-
examination, he admitted that he knew in September. (Tr. 53–54.) As such, I credit Marxmiller’s
testimony except where his testimony diverges from that of Eichen.
B. Respondent Violated the Act in Failing to Engage in Effects Bargaining With the Union45

9 Eichen was employed as a sales manager by Respondent. Respondent’s timesheets indicate he was
a salaried employee. (GC Exh. 10.)
JD–46–14
5
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to
bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees. 29 U.S.C. §158(a)(5). Section
8(d) of the Act explains that “to bargain collectively” is to “meet and confer in good faith with
respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the negotiation of an 5
agreement or any question arising thereunder.” 29 U.S.C. §158(d).
When an employer decides to close a facility solely for economic reasons, it is not obliged to
bargain over that decision, but it is required to negotiate with its unit employees' bargaining
representative concerning the effects of its decision. Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, 357 10
NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 2 (2011), citing First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S.
666, 681–682, 686 (1981). Bargaining over the effects of such a decision must be conducted in a
meaningful manner and at a meaningful time. First National Maintenance, 452 U.S. at 682.
Effects bargaining must occur sufficiently before the actual implementation of the decision so
that the union is not presented with a fait accompli. Komatsu America Corp., 342 NLRB 649, 15
649 (2004).
Marxmiller’s uncontroverted testimony establishes that Respondent never provided the
Union with official notice of its decision to close its business. Instead, Marxmiller came to
Respondent’s Champaign facility to inquire about rumors he had heard concerning Respondent 20
closing its business. Marsha Elliott announced to the represented employees that the business
was closing on the last day they worked, however this notice does not satisfy Respondent’s
obligation to notify the Union. Notice to individual employees does not constitute notice to the
bargaining agent. Bridon Cordage, Inc., 329 NLRB 258, 259 (1999). Marxmiller later learned
that the business had closed after seeing a notice to this effect posted in Respondent’s front 25
window in September or October. Accordingly, I find that Respondent did not satisfy its
obligation to timely notify the Union of its decision to close.
Furthermore, Respondent did not satisfy it obligation to engage in meaningful bargaining
regarding its decision to close. Good-faith bargaining requires timely notice and a meaningful 30
opportunity to bargain regarding the employer’s proposed change. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327
NLRB 835, 858 (1999), enf. granted in part and denied in part 233 F.3d 831 (4th Cir. 2000).
Additionally, if the notice is given too short a time before implementation, or if the employer has
no intention of changing its mind, then the notice is nothing more than a fait accompli. Brannan
Sand & Gravel, 314 NLRB 282, 282 (1994); Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Division, 264 NLRB 35
1013, 1017–1018 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d 1120 (3d Cir. 1983). Here, Marsha Elliott’s actions did
amount to meaningful effects bargaining. She spoke to Marxmiller only briefly. Although she
listened to Marxmiller’s suggestions, no evidence indicates that she altered her plans regarding
the shutdown in any way. She did not respond to Marxmiller’s suggestions or repeated requests
for further bargaining. As such, I find that Respondent did not satisfy its obligation to engage in 40
good-faith bargaining with the Union regarding the effects of its decision to close its business.
I find no merit in Respondent’s answer to the complaint in which it denied that a letter
seeking effects bargaining was sent by Marxmiller. (GC Exh. 1(h) par. 6(b); GC Exh. 6.)
Marxmiller testified that after his conversation with Marsha Elliot, he sent a certified letter to 45
Respondent seeking effects bargaining. (GC Exh. 6; Tr. 45.) Respondent provided no evidence
disputing that Marxmiller sent the letter. Furthermore, the letter was clearly received by
Respondent when it was signed for by Lindsey Elliott. Proof of mailing with proper address and
JD–46–14
6
postage raises a rebuttable presumption that Respondent received the letter in the ordinary course
of business. See Communication Workers Local 9201 (Pacific Northwest Bell), 275 NLRB
1529, 1530 (1985), citing Communication Workers Local 11500 (American Telephone), 272
NLRB 850, 851 (1984). Respondent provided no evidence refuting that the certified letter was
received by Lindsey Elliott on its behalf. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Lindsey 5
Elliott signed for Marxmiller’s letter and that Lindsey Elliott was an employee of Respondent
and Marsha Elliott’s daughter. Thus, I find that Respondent received Marxmiller’s certified
letter seeking effects bargaining.
Although Respondent had ceased doing business by the time that Lindsey Elliott belatedly 10
signed for Marxmiller’s letter, Respondent still received it. Respondent cannot escape its
bargaining obligation by failing or refusing to timely sign for a certified letter. Failure or refusal
to claim certified mail does not defeat the purposes of the Act. See ITAL General Construction,
Inc., 331 NLRB No. 64 (2000) (not published in Board volumes); and Michigan Expediting
Service, 282 NLRB 210 fn. 6 (1986), enfd. 869 F.2d 1492 (6th Cir. 1989). Thus, Respondent’s 15
failure to timely sign for Marxmiller’s letter, which was sent while Respondent was still
operating its business, does not excuse its failure to engage in the requested effects bargaining.
Marxmiller’s uncontroverted testimony, coupled with his letter of September 5 seeking
effects bargaining, lead to the conclusion that Respondent did not engage in good faith 20
negotiations regarding its decision to close its business. At the time that Respondent ceased
operations, Respondent and the Union had not reached any sort of agreement, or come to a good-
faith impasse, over the effects of Respondent’s decision to close its business. The Board has
found a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when, at the time of the implementation of a
decision, the parties had not reached agreement and were not at an impasse. Tesoro Refining & 25
Marketing, 360 NLRB No. 46, slip op. at 2 fn. 5 (2014). Similarly, in this case, the evidence
establishes that Respondent and the Union had not reached any sort of agreement regarding the
effects of Respondent’s decision to close its business and were not at impasse. As such, I find
that Respondent failed to satisfy its obligation to bargain in good faith regarding its decision to
close its business and violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 30
Moreover, even accepting as true Respondent’s tenuous argument that Marsha Elliott did not
have authority to bargain on behalf of Respondent, I cannot find that Respondent satisfied its
bargaining obligation.10 The only person with whom Marxmiller had ever dealt was Marsha
Elliot. Respondent’s argument also seems nonsensical given that Marsha Elliott signed the most 35
recent collective-bargaining agreement with the Union on Respondent’s behalf. Furthermore, if
Marsha Elliot lacked authority to bargain on Respondent’s behalf, Respondent failed to identity
anyone who had such authority. Sending a representative to the table without sufficient authority
to reach an agreement does not attain the stature of good faith effects bargaining. American
Needle & Novelty Co., 206 NLRB 534, 543 (1973). This failure, coupled with Respondent’s 40
failure to engage in the ordinary give-and-take required of good-faith negotiations, demonstrate a
lack of good-faith bargaining. See, e.g., Penntech Papers, Inc., 263 NLRB 264, 276 (1982)
(Board affirms judge’s finding of a violation of the Act where respondent did not cloak its
negotiator with sufficient authority and adopted a take-it-or-leave-it attitude which foreclosed a

10 At the hearing, Respondent’s counsel seemed to argue that Marsha Elliott did not have authority to
bargain on Respondent’s behalf. (Tr. 61–62.) Respondent did not make this argument in its brief,
nevertheless I address it here.
JD–46–14
7
good-faith exchange of ideas). Therefore, if Marsha Elliott lacked authority to bargain with
Marxmiller on Respondent’s behalf, this provides further evidence that Respondent failed to
bargain in good faith.
I reject Respondent’s arguments, set forth in its brief, that its actions were somehow excused 5
or justified. Initially, I reject Respondent’s argument that economic necessity may have
somehow excused its failure to bargain. (See R. Br. 4–5.) Respondent cites no case law in
support of this proposition. However, the law is clear that even though an action may be
economically motivated, an employer must still notify the union of its contemplated action and
bargain over its effects. Farina Corp., 310 NLRB 318, 320 (1993). Respondent further argues 10
that Marsha Elliott offered to “discuss” the future of Respondent’s employees with Marxmiller.
However, offering to discuss a matter with a union does not equate to good-faith collective
bargaining. Mi Pueblo Foods, 360 NLRB No. 116, slip op. at 31 (2014). There were no
counterproposals made to Marxmiller’s suggestions and no explanations were given for
Respondent’s contemplated actions regarding its employees. See Dallas & Mavis Specialized 15
Carrier Co., 346 NLRB 253, 279 (2006) (finding that a respondent did not engage in meaningful
negotiations when it summarily rejected the union’s proposals without explanation and did not
make any counterproposals). Instead, as I have found, Marsha Elliot presented the Union with
nothing more than a fait accompli. She did not engage in any good-faith exchange of ideas with
Marxmiller; instead, she merely set forth her intentions regarding Respondent’s employees for 20
Marxmiller to hear. She then failed to respond to Marxmiller’s letter or voicemail messages
seeking effects bargaining. Thus, Respondent’s arguments lack merit because its failure to
engage in meaningful effects bargaining was not excused by any economic necessity or Marsha
Elliott’s brief discussion with Marxmiller on August 21.
25
In sum, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to engage in good-
faith bargaining with the Union regarding its decision to close its business. Respondent did not
provide the Union with timely notice of its intent to close. Respondent’s single, brief meeting
with Marxmiller did not satisfy its obligation to engage in meaningful bargaining over the effects
of its decision. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated the Act as alleged in the General 30
Counsel’s complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), 35
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing to afford the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain over the effects 40
of its decision to close its business, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and of
the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.45
JD–46–14
8
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order
it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the 5
policies of the Act.
I will order that Respondent bargain with the Union, on request, over the effects of its
decision to close its business, and reduce to writing and sign any agreements reached as a result
of such bargaining. 10
Make-whole relief is not appropriate in effects bargaining cases. See Fast Food
Merchandisers, Inc., 291 NLRB 897, 899–902 (1988). The standard remedy in effects
bargaining cases is a limited make-whole Transmarine remedy, as clarified in Melody Toyota.
Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968); Melody Toyota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998); 15
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., 355 NLRB 507, 508 (2010); Stevens International, 337 NLRB
143, 144 (2001). A Transmarine remedy requires an employer to provide employees with
limited backpay from 5 days after the date of the decision until the occurrence of one of four
specified conditions. See Transmarine Navigation Corp, supra at 390.
20
Furthermore, I will order a limited backpay remedy designed to make any affected
bargaining unit members for any losses they suffered as a result of Respondent’s failure to
bargain about the effects of the decision to close its business. Specifically, for each affected
bargaining unit member, Respondent shall pay backpay at the rate of their normal wages from 5
days after the date of this Decision and Order until the occurrence of the earliest of the following25
conditions: (1) Respondent bargains to agreement with the Union about the effects of the
decision to close its business; (2) the parties reach a bona fide impasse in bargaining; (3) the
Union fails to request bargaining within 5 days after the receipt of this Decision and Order, or to
commence negotiations within 5 days after receipt of Respondent’s notice of its desire to bargain
with the Union; or (4) the Union subsequently fails to bargain in good faith; but in no event shall 30
the sum paid to any of the employees exceed the amount he or she would have earned as wages
from the date in September 2013 when the employee was terminated as a result of Respondent
closing its Champaign, Illinois, facility, to the time he or she secured equivalent employment
elsewhere; provided, however, that in no event shall this sum be less than the affected employees
would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of their normal wages. See Smurfit-Stone 35
Contractor Enterprises, 357 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 5–6 (2011), citing Transmarine
Navigation Corp., supra.
Backpay shall be based on the earnings that the affected employees would normally have
received during the applicable period, and shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection 40
Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at the rate
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
For all backpay required herein, Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security 45
Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also
compensate the discriminatees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more
JD–46–14
9
lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year. Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB
No. 44 (2012).
As Respondent has ceased doing business, it shall be required to mail copies of the attached
Notice to Employees marked “Appendix” to its former employees at its own expense. 5
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended11
ORDER10
The Respondent, Champaign Builders Supply Company, Champaign, Illinois, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from15
(a) Failing to timely notify Teamsters Local Union No. 26 and afford it an
opportunity to bargain over the effects of closing its business in September 2013; and
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees 20
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.
25
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit with respect to the
effects of the decision to close its Champaign, Illinois facility, and reduce to writing and
sign any agreements reached as a result of such bargaining:
30
All truck drivers, truck driver helpers, warehousemen, general yardmen,
end loader drivers and mechanics employed by Champaign Builders
Supply; but excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical employees,
guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
35
(b) Pay its former employees in the unit described above their normal wages when in
Respondent’s employ from 5 days after the date of this decision and order until the
occurrence of the earliest of the following conditions: (1) Respondent bargains to
agreement with the Union about the effects of the decision to close its business; (2) the
parties reach a bona fide impasse in bargaining; (3) the Union fails to request bargaining 40
within 5 days after the receipt of this decision and order, or to commence negotiations
within 5 days after receipt of Respondent’s notice of its desire to bargain with the Union;
or (4) the Union subsequently fails to bargain in good faith; but in no event shall the sum
paid to any of the employees exceed the amount he or she would have earned as wages

11 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–46–14
10
from the date in September 2013 when the employee was terminated as a result of
Respondent closing its Champaign, Illinois, facility, to the time he or she secured
equivalent employment elsewhere; provided, however, that in no event shall this sum be
less than the affected employees would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of
their normal wages, with interest, as set forth in the remedy portion of this decision and 5
order.
(c) Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating
backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate the
discriminatees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-10
sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year. Latino Express, Inc., 359
NLRB No. 44 (2012).
(d) 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 designated by 15
the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records 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.
20
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense and after being signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix” 12 to the Union and to all
unit employees who were employed by the Respondent at any time since September 1,
2013.25
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
30
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 7, 2014
35
_____________________________
Melissa M. Olivero
Administrative Law Judge
40

12 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.”
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, mail, 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 refuse to bargain collectively with the Union, Teamsters Local Union No. 26,
regarding the decision to close our Champaign, Illinois, facility.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union with respect to the effects of the decision to close
our Champaign, Illinois facility on the employees in the bargaining unit:
All truck drivers, truck driver helpers, warehousemen, general yardmen,
end loader drivers and mechanics employed by Champaign Builders
Supply; but excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical employees,
guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
and WE WILL reduce to writing and sign any agreements reached as a result of such bargaining.
WE WILL pay to our former unit employees their normal wages for a period of time specified by
the National Labor Relations Board with interest.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate our former employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year.
CHAMPAIGN BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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.
575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 238, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1577
(317) 226-7381, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/25-CA-114095 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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, (317) 226-7413.