International Bridge and Iron Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 21, 2011

34-CA-012616 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 21, 2011)

JD(ATL)–7–11
Newington, CT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES
INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE & IRON CO.
and Case No. 34–CA–12616
SHOPMEN’S LOCAL UNION NO. 832 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL &
REINFORCING IRON WORKERS, AFL-CIO
Sarah Pring Karpinen, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Robert D. Noonan, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
MICHAEL A. MARCIONESE, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case in Hartford,
Connecticut, on November 9, 2010.1 Shopmen’s Local No. 842 of the International Association
of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, the Union, filed the
unfair labor practice charge on March 9. On June 29, the complaint issued alleging that
International Bridge & Iron Co., the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by
failing and refusing to bargain with the Union regarding the effects of its February 26 decision to
cease operations and terminate all unit employees and its subsequent unilateral termination of
unit employees’ health, dental, and life insurance benefits. The complaint further alleges that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union
regarding the impact on unit employees of the Respondent’s termination of health, dental, life
insurance and COBRA benefits since the Union requested such bargaining on March 4.
On July 13, the Respondent filed its answer to the complaint admitting that it terminated
business operations on February 26 but denying that it did so without affording the Union
sufficient notice and an opportunity to bargain regarding the effects of the termination on unit
employees. The Respondent also denied that it unilaterally terminated the employees’ benefits,
claiming that the Respondent’s insurance coverage was cancelled by the insurance carrier, not
by the Respondent.

1 All dates are in 2010 unless otherwise indicated.
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Post-Hearing Motions
The parties filed their briefs on November 30. In its post-hearing brief, the Respondent
moved for dismissal of the complaint or, in the alternative, re-opening of the hearing with “the
appropriate respondent, the successor to International Bridge.” On December 2, Counsel for the
General Counsel filed a response in opposition to the motion to re-open. The Respondent
makes the same arguments in support of its motion to re-open that I rejected at the hearing
when the Respondent sought a last-minute continuance to investigate the successorship status
of Manafort Brothers, a general contractor for whom the Respondent was fabricating material at
the time of its closure. In support of its motion, the Respondent does not claim, as a basis for re-
opening the record, that there is newly discovered evidence that would materially affect the
results here. In fact, the evidence upon which the Respondent relies has been known to the
Respondent since shortly after it went out of business. Moreover, its claim that Manafort is a
successor is irrelevant to the issues raised by the complaint because any successorship, if it
occurred, post-dated the alleged unfair labor practices and would not affect the Respondent’s
obligations, if any, to bargain with the Union regarding the cessation of operations and
termination of benefits. TNT Logistics North America, 346 NLRB 1301, fn. 10 (2006). Finally,
the Respondent’s argument that Manafort is a Golden State2 successor liable to remedy any
unfair labor practices found here is an issue that need not be addressed at this stage of the
proceedings. Accordingly, for the reasons advanced by the General Counsel, I shall deny the
Respondent’s motion to re-open the hearing. See County Waste of Ulster, 355 NLRB No. 64
(2010) affirming 354 NLRB No. 54 (2009).
On December 2, counsel for the General Counsel also filed a motion to strike exhibit and
portions of the Respondent’s brief. Specifically, General Counsel seeks to strike the September
27, 2007 letter from Aetna, Inc. to the Respondent that includes one page of an insurance
contract, which was attached to the Respondent’s brief, and any references in the Respondent’s
brief to this document. General Counsel also seeks to strike from the Respondent’s brief
references to an affidavit of Joseph Bachta, which was not introduced at the hearing nor
attached to the Respondent’s brief, and any other references in the brief that are not based on
evidence that is part of the record from the hearing. Counsel for General Counsel argues that
reliance upon exhibits and evidence outside the record denies General Counsel and the
Charging Party of due process.
The Aetna letter and portion of the insurance contract attached to the Respondent’s brief
was available to the Respondent at the time of the hearing yet it was not proffered as an exhibit.
Accordingly, I shall strike the attachment and ignore any references to it in the Respondent’s
brief. Although Bachta testified at the hearing, his affidavit was not proffered as an exhibit. Thus,
it is not properly part of the record before me. See Section 102.45(b) of the NLRB’s Rules and
Regulations. I shall also ignore any references in the Respondent’s brief to Bachta’s affidavit.
Finally, in making my decision in this matter, I have considered only the testimony taken under
oath at the hearing and the exhibits that were properly authenticated and received in evidence.
References in the Respondent’s brief to any other matters, as described in General Counsel’s
motion, have been ignored. See King Soopers, Inc., 344 NLRB 842, fn. 1 (2005); Observer &
Eccentric Newspapers, Inc., 340 NLRB 124, fn. 1 (2003); S. Freedman Electric, Inc., 256 NLRB
432, fn. 1 (1981).
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the

2 Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973).
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, a corporation, was engaged in the fabrication of structural iron for
bridges and other construction at its facility in Newington, Connecticut, where it annually
purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Connecticut. The 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 meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The Respondent has been in the business of fabricating steel, iron and other metals for
the construction industry since 1992. Joseph Bachta is the company founder and served as its
president when the events at issue occurred. His daughter, Linda Lough, was the Executive
Vice President and was responsible, among other things, for all insurance and employee
benefits issues. The Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees since the early 1990s
under a series of collective bargaining agreements. The most recent contract was effective for
the period April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2012. That agreement required the Respondent to
provide health, dental and life insurance benefits for its unit employees.
There is no dispute that the Respondent had been experiencing financial difficulties for
some time prior to the events at issue here. Anthony Rosaci, the Union’s Business
Representative, testified that he has been aware of these difficulties since about 2005.
According to Rosaci, over the years there had been occasions when the Respondent could not
cover its payroll, or fell behind in paying for employee benefits. There was even an occasion
when the Respondent had to temporarily lay off all its employees because its workers’
compensation insurance lapsed from non-payment. Rosaci acknowledged that, during the
negotiations for the 2009-2012 collective bargaining agreement, the Union and its accountant
were permitted to review the company’s financial records. Despite these difficulties, however,
the Respondent did not seek any concessions from the Union during negotiations, agreeing
instead to wage increases in the second and third years of the contract. The Respondent also
did not tell the Union during negotiations that it contemplated going out of business as a result
of its financial difficulties.
On February 25, the Respondent held a meeting at the shop at which Bachta informed
the employees that it was shutting down at the close of business the next day and that their
employee benefits would terminate at the end of the month, i.e. February 28. Although the
Respondent did not notify the Union in advance that it would be meeting with the employees or
that it would be closing and terminating benefits, the Union’s shop steward, Salvatore Certo,
was present at this meeting. There is no dispute that Certo informed Rosaci after the meeting
regarding this announcement. The Respondent ceased operations, as planned, on Friday
February 26, laying off all unit employees. Also, as announced, the employees’ life insurance
and health and dental benfits were terminated on February 28. Also affected were five
employees who had been laid off that were receiving benefits under COBRA. These benefits
also ceased on February 28 even though the laid off employees had been paying the premiums
to continue receiving these benefits.
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
At the time the Respondent ceased operations, there were about 14 or 15 unit
employees working on a contract to fabricate iron for a Manafort Brothers bridge project. Certo
testified that there was about two to three months worth of work left on this job. The Respondent
had also recently completed a contract to fabricate material for a Long Island Railroad job and
Bachta had told Certo that he anticipated getting more work on the next phase of that job. Certo
also testified that whenever he spoke to Bachta about the company’s condition, Bachta
responded that he was bidding jobs and expected more work to come in.
On February 26, the Respondent faxed to Rosaci a letter informing the Union that the
Respondent was
ceasing operations on February 26, 2010. All employees will be receiving their
termination papers and notification of the termination of the health, dental, and life
insurance plans as of 2/28/10. Please call [number omitted] if you have any
questions.
Attached to this letter was a copy of the February 25 letter given to the employees announcing
the closure and termination of benefits. Rosaci admittedly did not call the Respondent upon
receipt of this letter. Instead, he sent the Respondent a letter on February 27 requesting
information related to the Respondent’s closure and termination of benefits. Rosaci reminded
the Respondent, in this letter, that “under the National Labor Relations Act you are obliged to
advise the Union of any changes effecting your operation. (sic)” On March 2, Lough responded
to Rosaci’s information request. Included in the response was a statement that COBRA would
be unavailable to terminated employees because there were no benefit plans continuing to
which terminated employees could contribute. On March 4, Rosaci sent another letter to the
Respondent requesting that the Respondent restore the status quo ante and bargain over the
impact of the Respondent’s decision to terminate the health insurance, dental insurance, life
insurance, and COBRA benefits. The Respondent never responded to this request.
Bachta and Lough testified that the decision to go out of business was made on
February 24, after meeting with the company’s corporate attorney and a bankruptcy attorney.
Lough testified that she and her father were told that the company was no longer viable. They
were instructed not to incur any more debt.3 Lough also testified that the Respondent had lost
out on a couple of bids and that there was not much work on the horizon. Lough testified further
that, after this meeting, she called the Respondent’s health and dental insurance carrier, Aetna,
and informed them that the Respondent had to close the company and terminate the
employees. According to Lough, she was told that, without an active workforce, the plan would
terminate. Lough testified that she was told there was no other option. On February 26, Lough
sent letters to Group Dynamic, Inc., the administrator of its COBRA benefits, and Rogers Benefit
Group, the Respondent’s health, dental and life insurance administrator, informing them that it
was “ceasing operations on 2/26/10 and terminating the health, dental, and life insurance plans
as of 2/28/10.”4 On cross-examination, Lough acknowledged that the Respondent had been
aware, at least since November 2009, that Webster Bank intended to collect on the debt it was
owed, She also acknowledged that, on the prior occasion when the Respondent had to lay off
all its unit employees, it was able to continue the benefit plans because she, her father and the

3 Lough testified that the Respondent owed more than $2million to Webster Bank, had more
than $1million in accounts payable for February, and was a party to “quite a few lawsuits.” The
Respondent has never filed for bankruptcy, choosing instead to dissolve the company.
4 Lough testified that she was instructed to write these letters by the unidentified Aetna
representative with whom she spoke about the Respondent’s cessation of operations.
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
office manager remained as active employees.
There is no dispute that, on March 8, Manafort Bros., through a new company called
CRP, leased the facility occupied by the Respondent, hired some of the unit employees, and
used the Respondent’s material and equipment to complete the work it had contracted with the
Respondent to do. The Union did not meet with Manafort representatives until after the
Respondent went out of business.5 Rosaci testified that the Union negotiated a separate
collective bargaining agreement with the new company to cover the work and that the terms and
conditions of employment differed from those in its collective bargaining agreement with the
Respondent. There is no evidence in the record regarding what discussions, if any, took place
between the Respondent and Manafort preceding CRP’s use of the facility to complete the work
under the Respondent’s contract with Manafort.
Although an employer has no duty to bargain regarding a decision to go out of business,
it is settled law that an employer must bargain with its employees’ statutory bargaining
representative regarding the effects of such a decision on the unit. See First National
Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 681-682 (1981). In order to satisfy this duty to
bargain, an employer must provide the union with timely notice and an opportunity to bargain “in
a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time.” Id., and Metropolitan Teletronics Corp., 279
NLRB 957, 959, fn. 14 (1986), enfd. mem. 819 F.2d 1130 (2nd Cir. 1987). Accord: AG
Communication Systems Corp., 350 NLRB 168, 172 (2007); Willamette Tug & Barge Co., 300
NLRB 282, 283 (1990); Los Angeles Soap Co., 300 NLRB 289 (1990). Timely notice in these
circumstances generally means that a Union must be notified sufficiently in advance of the
closure to allow for the exchange of information and proposals, and review of those proposals at
a time when the Union still has leverage to bargain. The Board has, however, excused an
employer from giving advance notice of closure in emergency situations where such notice is
unrealistic. Raskin Packing Co., 246 NLRB 78 (1979); M & M Transportation Co., 239 NLRB 73
(1978); National Terminal Bakery Co., 190 NLRB 465 (1971). The Board has held that, even in
those circumstances where advance notice of closure is excused, the duty to bargain over the
effects still exists once the “emergency” has passed. Cyclone Fence, Inc., 330 NLRB 1354
(2000); National Terminal Bakery, 190 NLRB supra, at 466. In these cases, the burden is on the
employer to demonstrate “particularly unusual or emergency circumstances” that would relieve it
of the obligation to provide the Union with effective notice. Compact Video Services, 319 NLRB
131, fn. 1 (1995); Willamette Tug & Barge Co., supra.
In the present case, the Respondent did not officially notify the Union that it was ceasing
operations and terminating the employees and their benefits until February 26, the day of the
closure. The Respondent would argue that it provided timely notice, a day earlier, when Bachta
met with the employees to announce the Respondent’s decision. Although steward Certo was
present at this meeting, he was there in his capacity as an employee, not a union
representative. The Board and courts have long held that notice to employees does not
constitute sufficient notice to the Union. Bridon Cordage, Inc., 329 NLRB 258, 259 (1999); Ciba-
Geigy Pharmaceuticals Div., 264 NLRB 1013, 1017 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d 1120 (3rd Cir. 1983).
The Respondent also argues that the Union was already on notice regarding the Respondent’s
precarious financial condition before the announcement that it was going out of business.

5 Rosaci admitted having one prior discussion with Manafort in late 2009, when the
Respondent was having problems making payroll and keeping its workers’ compensation
insurance in place. According to Rosaci, Manafort’s concern at that time was ensuring that the
Respondent completed the fabrication work so there would be no disruption on Manafort’s
construction project.
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
However, the Respondent’s own witnesses testified that no decision was made to cease
operations until after the February 24 meeting with the Respondent’s attorneys and that the
Respondent intended to continue in business up until that time. Thus, the Union would have no
reason to request effects bargaining before February 24, notwithstanding any concerns it had
regarding the Respondent’s ability to pay employees their wages and benefits.
The issue then is whether the Respondent’s February 26 notice to the Union, on the day
it was going out of business, was sufficient to meet its effects bargaining obligation or whether
the Respondent’s last-minute notice was excused by emergency circumstances. The testimony
of Lough and Bachta that they were faced with an “emergency” requiring the cessation of
operations on February 26 was elicited by leading questions of counsel and is self-serving. The
Respondent offered no evidence to buttress the claims of Lough regarding the Respondent’s
current debts, prospective liabilities and lack of incoming work. While it is true that the Union
was aware of the Respondent’s debt to Webster Bank, because this was disclosed during
negotiations in 2009, there is no evidence in the record before me that Webster Bank had taken
any action to force the Respondent’s closure. The Respondent had in fact been working under
this debt burden for some time without making any decision to close. The advice the
Respondent received from its own attorneys on February 24 to stop incurring debt was not the
type of emergency recognized by the Board to excuse advance notice of a decision to terminate
unit employees. This case differs from those cases because there is no third party action, such
as denial of a credit line, foreclosure by the bank, theft of company vehicles or equipment, etc,
that compelled the Respondent to act when it did. The Respondent could have notified the
Union immediately after the February 24 meeting with its attorneys that it had reached a
decision to cease operations, thereby affording the Union an opportunity to negotiate over the
effects and thus minimize the impact on the unit employees of the inevitable loss of work and
benefits. There is simply nothing in this record which establishes that the Respondent had to
close on February 26. Because the Respondent was in control of the timing of its decision, it
had the ability to give the Union effective and meaningful notice of that decision. Accordingly, I
find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to provide the
Union with effective and timely notice of its decision to cease operations, thereby denying the
Union an opportunity to bargain regarding the effects of that decision.
One of the effects of the Respondent’s decision to cease operations and terminate its
employees was the termination of the health and dental and life insurance benefits required
under the collective bargaining agreement. The Respondent attempted to show that the
decision to terminate the benefit plans was made by its insurance carrier. the Respondent
offered no evidence to support this claim other than the unsupported hearsay testimony of
Lough regarding a conversation she had with an unidentified Aetna representative. The
correspondence she sent to the plan administrators after this conversation clearly states that the
Respondent was terminating the benefit plans. In any event, even assuming it was the carrier
that terminated the Respondent’s plans, that “decision” was triggered by the Respondent’s
actions. As noted above, the Respondent had control over the timing of its decision to close.
Once it made this decision, the termination of employee benefits followed. Because the
Respondent did not inform the Union before February 26 that the employees’ benefits would be
terminated, and because it ignored the Union’s specific request on March 4 to negotiate over
the effects of that decision, I find the Respondent has violated the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
Throughout this proceeding, the Respondent has attempted to avoid the consequences
of its actions by claiming that Manafort Brothers is the true Respondent here, claiming that they
are a successor to the Respondent and liable for any unfair labor practices committed, or in the
alternative, to remedy those unfair labor practices. I find that this argument is nothing more than
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
a red herring. It was the Respondent that made the decision to go out of business, to lay off all
its unit employees and to cause the termination of their benefits. Manafort Brothers had no
involvement in that decision. Certainly if it did, the Respondent’s witnesses would have known
about it and testified to such involvement. Instead, the Respondent’s witnesses testified it was
the company’s own attorneys that advised the Respondent to take the action it did. Whatever
discussions Manafort had with the Union regarding Manafort’s own concerns over completion of
the work the Respondent was contracted to do, was not shown by the Respondent to have been
a factor in the Respondent’s decision to close. Similarly, whatever Manafort and the Union did
after the Respondent went out of business to ensure that the work in progress was completed
could not excuse the Respondent’s unfair labor practices.
I am also not persuaded by the Respondent’s attempts to show that Manafort Brothers
was a successor liable to remedy the Respondent’s unfair labor practices under Golden State
Bottling Co., supra. In the first place, the evidence in the record is insufficient to make such a
determination. Secondly, the Respondent would have to have been a party to any agreement
whereby Manafort Brothers became a successor because it would have to have agreed to
purchase the assets of the Respondent and assume its obligations. The Respondent came
forward with no such evidence. The Respondent did not even claim that such evidence existed.
Instead, the Respondent attempted to prove that negotiations between Manafort Brothers and
the Union, which did not own or have control over the Respondent’s assets, somehow created
successor liability. I am not prepared to make such a novel finding. In any event, if the
Respondent has evidence to show that Manafort Brothers acquired its assets with knowledge of
the potential liability here and was a true Golden State successor, it may produce such evidence
at the compliance stage of this proceeding.
Conclusions of Law
By failing and refusing to bargain with Shopmen’s Local No. 842 of the International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL-CIO regarding
the effects of its decision to cease operations, terminate all unit employees and terminate the
employees’ life, health and dental insurance benefits and COBRA benefits, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1), and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Counsel for the General Counsel has asked for a Transmarine
remedy for the Respondent’s refusal to bargain over the effects of its decision to close.6 A
Transmarine remedy requires an employer to bargain over the effects of its decision and to
provide unit employees limited back pay, from 5 days after the Board’s decision until one of the
following occurs: (1) an effects bargaining agreement is reached; (2) a bona fide impasse in
effects negotiations is reached; (3) the Union fails to request bargaining within 5 days of receipt
of the Board’s decision or to commence bargaining within 5 days of the employer’s notice of its
desire to bargain; or (4) the Union ceases to bargain in good faith. The Board has held that “in
no event shall this sum be less than these employees would have earned for a 2-week period at
the rate of their normal wages when last in the Respondent’s employ.” 170 NLRB supra, at 390.

6 Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968).
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
See also Melody Toyota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998). I agree with the General Counsel that such a
remedy is appropriate here.7 The limited back pay ordered here shall be paid with interest to be
compounded daily in accordance with the Board’s recent decision in Kentucky River Medical
Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (October 22, 1010).
The fact that some of the unit employees were hired by CRP to finish the Manafort job
does not negate the need for a Transmarine remedy here. As counsel for the General Counsel
notes, not all the unit employees were hired by CRP and those that were hired had a gap in
employment. There is also no evidence regarding how long those employees hired by CRP
continued to work and or whether their wage and benefits exceeded those they would have
received under the Respondent’s collective bargaining agreement with the Union. This case is
thus distinguishable from AG Communications Corp., supra, where the Board found a back pay
award unwarranted. In that case, the unit employees who lost their jobs as the result of the
employer’s decision to integrate their jobs into another division, represented by a different
Union, suffered no loss as a result and ended up with better terms and conditions of
employment. This case is more like Walter Pape, 205 NLRB 719, 720 (1973), where it was
unclear whether all unit employees were hired by the company to which the employer sold or
subcontracted the work. See also Sea-Jet Trucking Corp., 327 NLRB 540, 549 (1999).
The General Counsel also requests a remedy for any unit employees who incurred
expenses as a result of the Respondent’s termination of their life, health and dental insurance
benefits, or as the result of the denial of COBRA benefits. There is evidence in the record that at
least one unit employee, Certo, incurred unreimbursed medical bills in the period between the
lapse in coverage under the Respondent’s plan and the date he was able to obtain alternate
coverage. I agree with the General Counsel that such a remedy is appropriate here in order to
make the unit employees whole for any loss they suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended8
ORDER
The Respondent, International Bridge & Iron Co, Newington, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with Shopmen’s Local No. 842 of the
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO, the Union, by ceasing operations and terminating all unit employees and the life, health
and dental insurance plans covering them without affording the Union sufficient notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the effects of this decision on employees in the following appropriate

7 Because I have rejected the Respondent’s argument that its decision was necessitated by
an emergency or exigent circumstances, the Board’s decision in National Terminal Bakery,
supra, declining to order such a remedy, does not apply.
8 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)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
unit:
All production and maintenance employees who were engaged in the fabrication of
iron, steel, metal and other products, or in the maintenance work in and about the
Company’s plants located in Newington, Connecticut and vicinity.
(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 Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively with the Union with respect to the effects on unit
employees of the Respondent’s decision to cease operations and terminate employees’ life,
health and dental insurance and COBRA benefits.
(b) Pay the former employees in the unit described above, with interest compounded
daily, their normal wages when last in the Respondent’s employ from 5 days after the date of
this decision until the occurrence of the earliest of the following conditions: (1) the date the
Respondent bargains to agreement with the Union on those subjects pertaining to the effects of
the Respondent’s decision to cease operations and terminate the employees’ life, health and
dental insurance and COBRA benefits; (2) the date a bona fide impasse in bargaining occurs;
(3) the failure of the Union to request bargaining within 5 business days after receipt of this
Decision, or to commence negotiations within 5 business days after receipt of the Respondent’s
notice of its desire to bargain with the Union; or (4) the subsequent failure of the Union 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 from February 26, 2010, the date the
Respondent ceased operations, to the time he or she secured equivalent employment
elsewhere; provided, however, that in no event shall this sum be less than these employees
would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of their normal wages when last in the
Respondent’s employ, as set forth in the remedy portion of this decision.
(c) Make whole unit employees for any unreimbursed expenses they incurred as a result
of the Respondent’s termination of its life, health and dental insurance plans and its termination
of COBRA benefits for terminated employees.
(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 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.
JD(ATL)–7–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail copies of the attached notice marked
Appendix,9 at its own expense, to all employees in the unit described above who were
employed by the Respondent at its Newington, Connecticut facility on February 24, the date the
Respondent made its decision to cease operations. The notice shall be mailed to the last known
address of each of the employees after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative.
(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.
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 21, 2011.
____________________
Michael A. Marcionese
Administrative Law Judge

9 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 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 and refuse to bargain collectively with Shopmen’s Local No. 842 of
the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL-
CIO (the Union) by ceasing operations and terminating all unit employees and the life, health
and dental insurance plans covering them without affording the Union sufficient notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the effects of this decision on employees in the following appropriate
unit:
All production and maintenance employees who were engaged in the fabrication of
iron, steel, metal and other products, or in the maintenance work in and about the
Company’s plants located in Newington, Connecticut and vicinity.
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 regarding the effects of our decision to
cease operations and terminate our employees and the life, health and dental insurance plans
covering them and any COBRA benefits to which they are entitled.
WE WILL pay unit employees their normal wages for the period set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
WE WILL make whole unit employees for any losses they incurred, including out-of-
pocket medical expenses, as a result of our unlawful refusal to bargain over the effects of our
decision to terminate their life, health and dental insurance and COBRA benefits.
INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE & IRON CO.
(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.
A.A. Ribicoff Federal Building and Courthouse
450 Main St., Suite 410
Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3503
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
860-240-3522.
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, 860-240-3528.