Tecumseh Packaging Solutions, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 16, 2007

07-CA-049861 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 16, 2007)

JD–45–07
Tecumseh, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
TECUMSEH PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.
and Cases 7–CA–49861
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY,
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL–CIO
Michael P. Silverstein, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Robert J. Brown, Esq.,
(Thompson Hine, LLP),
of Dayton, Ohio,
for the Respondent.
John G. Adam, Esq.,
(Martens, Ice, Klass, Legghio & Israel, P.C.),
of Royal Oak, Michigan,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Karl H. Buschmann, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit, Michigan,
on March 28, 2007. The charge was filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO (the Union) on September 6, 2006, as amended on November 6, 2006, and on
December 13, 2006. The complaint was issued December 19, 2006. The complaint alleges
that the Respondent, Tecumseh Packaging Solutions, Inc., violated Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). More specifically, it is alleged that the Respondent
unilaterally and without bargaining with the Union implemented certain conditions of
employment for its unit employees, including a wage increase, a change in the holiday and
overtime calculation, a new 401(k) plan, new work rules contained in the employee handbook, a
change in health insurance, and a changed grievance procedure. The complaint also
challenges new work rules as an unlawful interference with the employees’ rights guaranteed
them under Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer admitting the jurisdictional
allegations in the complaint, but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
By Order consolidating cases and notice of hearing, dated January 28, 2007, the
Regional Director ordered that Case 7–RD–3544, a petition to decertify the Union, be
consolidated for the purpose of a hearing to determine whether the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint in Case 7–CA–49861 bear a causal relationship to the employee
disaffection reflected in the filing of the decertification petition. Following the hearing in Case
7–CA–49861 and having performed the function of the hearing officer in Case 7–RD–3544, as
JD–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
requested by the Regional Director, Case 7–RD–3544 was severed at the conclusion of the
hearing and remanded to the Regional Director for appropriate disposition of the case in
accordance with Section 102.64 through 104.66 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party and the
Respondent, I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, Tecumseh Packing Solutions, Inc., is an Ohio corporation, engaged in
the manufacture, nonretail sale and distribution of corrugated paperboard boxes and related
products at its facility at 707 S. Evans Street, Tecumseh, Michigan, where it annually derived
revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 from points located outside the State of Michigan. 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, Tecumseh Packaging Solutions, Inc. is the successor to Tecumseh
Corrugated Box (TCB), which manufactured and sold paper corrugated boxes in several
facilities in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. The Union represented the production and
maintenance employees at the Tecumseh, Michigan facility, which is the subject of the current
proceeding. Their collective-bargaining agreement covering the 72 employees was effective
from June 15, 2004 to June 15, 2008 (GC Exh. 2).
By letter of March 24, 2006, TCB advised the Union that management was considering
the sale of its assets to Akers Packaging Service, Inc. and that the previous owners, Jeff and
Jim Robideau, would continue their management roles in the new company (GC Exh. 3). On
May 8, 2006, Jim and Bill Akers, the incoming owners met with the employees and formally
announced the sale of TCB’s assets to Akers Packaging Service. The new owners emphasized
that the new arrangement would consist of an acquisition of assets without assuming any
liabilities, that the new company would not recognize the Union nor honor the union contract.
According to Akers, he had no problem with the employees wanting to be represented by a
union, but that they would be wasting their money, because he would not give them anything in
a bargaining agreement that he would not give them in regular work rules. Akers assured the
employees that their hourly pay would remain the same, and that he would attempt to get them
comparable medical insurance, but that other insurance benefits, such as disability, life, dental
and vision insurance, as well as a pension plan, would be the responsibility of the employees.
The employees were told that the new company would start with about 50 employees and
hopefully operate with 42 employees, and that applicants would go through an interview, take a
drug test and a physical. Instead of three shifts, Akers hoped to run the Company with two
shifts.
Upon learning of the events, Connie Malloy, staff representative for the Union, contacted
Jeff Robideau, president of TCB, to request bargaining over the effects of the pending sale of
the Company to the new owners. As a result, the parties reached a Supplemental Agreement,
dated May 18, 2007, governing the terms for the effects of the transaction upon the employees
(GC Exh. 4).
JD–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Having completed the assets acquisition on June 12, 2006, the Respondent began
operations without interruption at the same location using the same equipment with 28 full-time
production and maintenance employees of the predecessor and approximately 6 temporary
employees (Jt. Exh. 1). Jeff Robideau, the prior president, continued as the general manager of
the newly named company. Initially, the Respondent operated with one shift, after a few weeks
the Employer expanded the operation to two shifts. All employees received a set of Work Rules
(GC Exh. 15). The rules contain the following prohibitions: Engaging in any unauthorized
activity during working hours that is not related to the employee’s regular job responsibilities;
[p]osting, distribution (sic), or circulating of unauthorized notices, posters and placards during
working hours and in working areas. The Rules also prohibit “[l]oitering on Company property
after working hours.
By letter of June 20, 2006, the Union demanded recognition and requested bargaining
on behalf of the production and maintenance employees and also demanded that the
Respondent maintain the status quo regarding salary and other benefits until a new agreement
is reached (GC Exh. 5). The Respondent by letter of June 2, 2006, agreed to recognize the
Union, the duty to bargain, and to maintain the status quo (GC Exh. 6). The Respondent also
offered to meet the Union on July 26, 2006, for an initial bargaining session.
Prior to any meeting with the Union, the Respondent held a meeting with the employees
on or about July 14, 2006. Management informed the employees that they had done a good job
and that they would get a 2.5 percent pay increase, effective July 1, 2006. The collective-
bargaining agreement provided for a 2 percent increase in pay, effective June 15, 2006. The
Respondent admitted that it did not inform the Union or bargain with the Union about the
implementation of the pay raise.
The first bargaining session was held on July 26, 2006. Representing the Union were
Timothy Michels, union president and Connie Malloy. The Respondent was represented by Jeff
Robideau, Bill Akers, Rob Waynick, production manager and Robert J. Brown, attorney. The
Union offered a contract proposal along the lines of the expired agreement (GC Exh. 8). The
Union raised the issue of holiday and vacation pay for time lost as a result of a holiday. The
Respondent took the position that an employee had to work at least 40 hours before getting
overtime pay. The issue arose when employees were not scheduled for work on July 4, 2006,
and worked on the following Saturday without getting overtime. The Union’s contract proposal
contains a proviso specifically dealing with the issue. Company witnesses disagreed that the
issue was discussed at the union meeting. The Union also discussed a 401(k) plan under which
the Company would match 50 percent of an employee’s contributions up to 4 percent. The
Company did not submit a counterproposal. Also discussed at the meeting was health
insurance. The Respondent had obtained Humana PPO health care coverage for the
employees and informed the Union of the monthly medical premiums under that plan (GC Exh.
9, R. Exh. 6). The Union discussed its Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance and hoped to obtain a
quote from that insurance carrier.
The parties did not meet for their next bargaining session until September 22, 2006. In
the meantime, the Respondent implemented several terms and conditions of employment
which, according to the General Counsel, should have been the subject of collective bargaining
with the Union. As mentioned during its meeting with the employees on May 8, 2006, the
Respondent instituted a 401(k) plan, effective September 1, 2006, and posted a memorandum
to that effect on July, 26, 2006 (GC Exh. 17). The Respondent admitted that it did not inform
the Union or bargain with it about the implementation of the new 401(k) plan, even though the
Union had proposed a 401(k) plan as a part of its contract offer (GC Exh. 8).
JD–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Similarly, the Respondent effectuated a change in computating overtime for employees
who worked following a holiday. The Respondent posted a memorandum on July 26, 2007,
entitled, “Notice Regarding Tecumseh Packaging Solutions, Inc. Overtime Pay Policy.” The
Respondent announced that there “has been a change to the way overtime hours are calculated
when considering hours worked “(GC Exh. 16). Even though the Union had raised the issue at
the bargaining table and made the same proposal in its contract offer, the Respondent failed to
notify the Union and to bargain with the Union, when it posted the memorandum notifying the
employees of the policy changes (GC Exh. 8, p. 6).
In August or September 2006 the Respondent conducted an informational meeting with
the employees about the Company’s 401(k) plan. Representatives from UBS Financial and
Hartford Insurance were present and discussed investment options. The Respondent did not
notify the Union of the meeting. In addition, the Company passed out the new employee
handbook to the employees (GC Exh. 18). The handbook contained several provisions, the
substance of which the Union had intended to discuss. However, the Respondent did not notify
the Union, nor offer to bargain with it prior to implementing the provisions of the new handbook.

At the May 8, 2006 meeting with the employees, the Respondent assured the
employees that it hoped to provide them with comparable medical insurance. The Respondent
had obtained Humana PPO healthcare coverage for its employees (R. Exh. 6). During the July
26, 2006 bargaining session, the Union raised the issue of health insurance and offered to
obtain a quote from the Steelworkers plan by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. In the
meantime, the Respondent negotiated with Blue Cross Blue Shield (GC Exh. 26). On August
14, 2006, the Respondent had already decided to switch its medical plan back to Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan, effective October 1, 2006 (GC Exh. 25). Without notifying the Union or
waiting for the quote from the Union’s health plan, the Respondent notified the employees by
memorandum of August 30, 2006, entitled “Medical Coverage – Open Enrollment for Blue Cross
Blue Shield” (GC Exh. 19). The Respondent provided the Union with the benefit details in
September 2006 (GC Exh. 21). Admittedly, the Respondent did not consult with the Union nor
offered to bargain with the Union about the switch to Blue Cross Blue Shield.
On September, 22, 2006, the parties held their second bargaining session. The Union
requested information about the Company’s healthcare plan (GC Exh. 12). The Company
provided certain cost information to the Union (GC Exh. 9). A discussion ensued about the Blue
Cross Blue Shield insurance plans and the Union’s healthcare proposal, dated September 5,
2006 (GC Exh. 14). The Respondent also submitted a contract proposal which was discussed
at great length (GC Exhs. 13, 14).
The final issue involved Timothy Michels, an employee and union president of Local
1026. He submitted a grievance report, dated September 27, 2006, to Rob Waynick, production
manager, complaining about the Company’s failure to perform bidding for available jobs (GC
Exh. 23). In the middle of October 2006, Waynick returned the grievance to Michels telling him
that the Company would not accept the grievance, and advised him to use the company
complaint procedure contained in the employee handbook. Michels requested Waynick to
confirm this in writing. Waynick complied, stating: “For any issues in the workplace the
employee’s handbook has a complaint procedure that needs to be followed” (GC Exh. 24). The
Union challenged the procedure, because the handbook was implemented without bargaining
with the Union.
JD–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Analysis
The parties are in agreement that the Respondent is a successor corporation to TCB.
This becomes clear, considering the totality of the circumstances showing a continuity of the
business operation in the same plant with the same, albeit reduced, work force, performing the
same work on the same equipment and producing the same products under the same manager,
namely Jeff Robideau as general manager. As a successor employer, the Respondent has the
right to set the initial terms of employment for the employees. However, the bargaining
obligation attaches once a successorship exists, that is when the holdover employees constitute
a majority of the employees. At that point unilateral changes in existing terms become unlawful.
NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972); Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v.
NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987).
The record shows that the Respondent told the employees at the May 8, 2006 meeting
that it would not be bound by the predecessor’s collective-bargaining agreement and
announced the initial terms of employment, which included the employees’ wages, their work
shifts, different health insurance and the elimination of the Employer’s pension and insurance
expenses. With the commencement of its operation on June 12, 2006, the Respondent had
implemented its work rules, including healthcare coverage for the employees by the Humana
health plan.
By letter of June 20, 2006, the Union made its request to bargain. The Respondent
acknowledged the Union’s demand by letter of June 22, 2006 and consented to the Union’s
request. Clearly the Union had made an unequivocal demand to bargain when the employer’s
obligation attached. Most of the Respondent’s employees were employees of the predecessor
obligating the Respondent to bargain with the employees’ bargaining representative. Jerry’s
Finer Foods, 210 NLRB 52, 54 (1974). Nevertheless, on July 14, 2006, the Respondent
announced to its employees that they would get an immediate wage increase of 2.5 percent
even though it had earlier promised an increase of only 2 percent in accordance with the
bargaining agreement. Admittedly, the Respondent did not notify the Union nor afford it an
opportunity to bargain. The Respondent’s unilateral implementation of the 2.5 percent pay raise
of July 1, 2006, was therefore unlawful, even though the change benefited the employees.
NLRB v. Exchange Parts, 375 U.S. 405 (1964).
In August 2006, the Respondent announced to the employees that it changed insurance
companies from Humana to Blue Cross Blue Shield, effective October 1, 2006. As already
discussed above, it was understood at the first bargaining session that the Union expected to
obtain a quote from its health insurance carrier and to negotiate the issue with the Respondent.
Yet the Respondent implemented the change without notifying the Union and without affording it
the opportunity to bargain. The Respondent’s explanation that initially it was forced to go with
Humana insurance, and that it had intended all along to be covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield,
certainly did not prevent it from notifying the Union and to bargain. It cannot be gainsaid that
the Respondent effectuated a significant change in working conditions by switching from one
insurance carrier to another without honoring its bargaining obligation. I accordingly find that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
The Parties agree that the Company’s work rules do not address the issue of overtime
pay as a result of a holiday. However, the Union’s contract proposal submitted at the July 26,
2006 bargaining session does contain such a provision, which states that “time lost from work
due to vacation, holidays, and union business shall be considered as time worked for purposes
of calculating overtime pay.” The issue arose when an employee was not paid following the
July 4 holiday. The issue was presented to David Degner, administrative manager. Degner
JD–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
posted a notice in July 2006 regarding the Company’s holiday policy, stating that there “has
been a change to the way overtime hours are calculated when considering hours worked.”
According to the notice, the Respondent agreed to consider holiday and vacation hours when
figuring overtime so that employees were paid overtime following the July 4 holiday. The
Respondent strongly argues that the matter was a mere ministerial correction rather than a
change in policy, and points to the testimony of the Company’s negotiators that the issue was
not discussed at the bargaining session. The Union witnesses disagreed and clearly recalled
discussing the issue. Considering the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the wording of the
notice and the terms in the Union’s contract proposal, I have resolved the credibility issue in
favor of the General Counsel. I find that the Respondent unilaterally changed its policy on
overtime pay without notice to the Union and without affording it an opportunity to bargain, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
At the May 8, 2006 meeting with the employees, the Respondent announced that it
would offer a 401(k) plan. On about July 26, 2006, the Respondent posted a notice, entitled,
New 401(k) Plan, notifying the employees that the plan would be set up with the projected
enrollment date of September 1, 2006, to be administered by UBS Financial Services and
Hartford Insurance Company. Although the Respondent admitted that it did not inform nor
bargain with the Union concerning the implementation of the plan, the Respondent argues that it
had no obligation to do so, reasoning that the matter had been announced before the bargaining
obligation attached and the Respondent had the right to set its own terms and conditions of
employment. However, the General Counsel has shown that the program was not in effect at
the May meeting, and that the Union had offered to bargain about the issue when it proposed its
version of a 401(k) plan as part of its contract offer at the July 26, 2006 bargaining session. At
that time the Respondent did not have any 401(k) plan in effect. The record does not show why
the Respondent failed to notify the Union of its intentions during the bargaining session on July
26, 2006. Clearly, the Respondent ignored its bargaining obligation and violated the Act by its
unilateral conduct.
In late August or early September when the employees were meeting with
representatives of UBS and Hartford, the Respondent distributed to the employees a new
handbook containing work rules. This was in addition to the work rules announced earlier, when
as part of its hiring process, the Respondent issued work rules to the newly hired employees.
The new handbook, dated August 8, 2006, is 22 pages long and contains detailed provisions
governing employee conduct in the work place, including attendance and absenteeism,
substance abuse, violence in the work place, a problem solving process, jury duty and
bereavement policies, as well as employee services and benefits. The Respondent argues that
the distribution of a handbook had been announced in the May meetings when the Company
was permitted to establish its own terms. The General Counsel has shown that the handbook
contained new terms and conditions of employment. It is also clear that the Union had
proposed to bargain over work rules at the bargaining session. By distributing handbooks
containing new work rules and policies affecting the employees without giving notice to the
Union and without affording it to bargain, the Respondent acted unilaterally in violation of its
promise to maintain the status quo during the negotiations. The Respondent’s conduct violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (8) of the Act.
Finally, the Respondent improperly rejected a grievance submitted by Timothy Michels
to Rob Waynick, Respondent’s production manager. The grievance, dated September 12,
2006, challenged the Company’s bidding procedure. A month later, Waynick responded and
directed Michels in a memorandum, dated October 13, 2007, to follow the Company’s complaint
procedure contained in the employee handbook. As discussed above, the complaint procedure
was one of the provisions unilaterally implemented by the Respondent, when it distributed the
JD–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
employee handbook. Clearly, the Respondent effectuated an improperly implemented work rule
contained in the employee handbook.
The General Counsel also challenges two work rules promulgated on June 12, 2006, as
overly broad and a no-access rule as invalid. The Respondent concedes that its work rules
which prohibit solicitation and distribution of literature during working hours are in conflict with
established law and argues that no employees have been disciplined for violating the rules. I
accept the Company’s representation that none of the employees have been disciplined
because of the prohibitions. But maintaining such provisions has a tendency to intimidate the
employees. In this regard the law is clear, employees have the right to solicit or distribute union
material on their own time. Prohibiting union activity during working hours, as distinguished from
working time, is presumptively invalid. Our Way, Inc. 268 NLRB 394 (1983). The record does
not show that the Respondent has tolerated solicitation during break time or during nonworking
time. Accordingly, the rules are facially invalid and unlawful. But I find the other prohibition
against loitering on company property lawful. I agree with the Respondent that an employer
should have the right to prohibit loitering on company property.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
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 following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its
707 S. Evans Street, Tecumseh, Michigan location; but excluding all supervisors,
office workers, and guards.

4. By implementing the following terms and conditions of employment without notice to
the Union and without affording it an opportunity to bargain collectively and in good faith, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act:
(a) Unilaterally implementing a wage increase for the unit employees,
(b) unilaterally implementing changes to the health insurance of unit employees,
(c) unilaterally implementing a change in the manner of calculating unit employees’
overtime hours related to holidays,
(d) unilaterally implementing a new 401(k) plan for its unit employees,
(e) unilaterally implementing a new employee handbook for its unit employees, and
attempting to effectuate a complaint procedure contained in the handbook.
5. By maintaining work rules containing overly broad solicitation and distribution provisions,
the Respondent interfered with the employees’ Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices found above affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
JD–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
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. Having found that the Respondent failed to bargain
collectively and in good faith by unilaterally implementing certain working conditions, it must be
ordered to bargain in good faith with the Union and on request by the Union rescind its unilateral
actions. The Respondent must also be ordered to rescind its overly broad solicitation rules, but
a make whole remedy is not necessary here, where none of the employees have been
disciplined pursuant to the rules, however, a make whole remedy is indicated in connection with
the implementation of the new handbook. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The Respondent, Tecumseh Packaging Solutions, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining employee work rules containing overly broad prohibitions against union
solicitation or distribution of union material.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its 707 S.
Evans Street, Tecumseh, Michigan location; but excluding all supervisors, office workers,
and guards.
(c) Unilaterally implementing the following terms and conditions of employment for unit
employees: Wage increases, changes to health insurance policies, changes to the manner of
calculating overtime relating to holidays, a new 401(k) program, promulgation of a new
employee handbook and effectuating an internal complaint procedure contained therein
(d) In any like or related manner interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind its overly broad work rules prohibiting union solicitation or distribution of
union material during working hours.
(b) On request by the Union, rescind the above-mentioned unilateral changes in the
terms and conditions of employment, and rescind any discipline issued to unit employees as a
result of the unilateral implementation of rules contained in the employee handbook, remove

1 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–45–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
any discipline from its files and so inform the employees when that has been done and make
them whole for any losses suffered as result of the unilateral implementation of the work rules
contained in the handbook with interest in accordance with applicable decisions.
(c) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the above-mentioned appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
(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.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility at 707 S. Evans Street,
Tecumseh, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since June 12, 2006.
(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., July 16, 2007.
____________________
Karl H. Buschmann
Administrative Law Judge

2 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–45–07
Tecumseh, MI
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 maintain employee work rules containing overly broad prohibitions against
union solicitation or distribution of union material.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the collective
bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its 707 S.
Evans Street, Tecumseh, Michigan location; but excluding all supervisors, office workers,
and guards.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement the following terms and conditions of employment for unit
employees: Wage increases, changes to health insurance policies, changes to the manner of
calculating overtime relating to holidays, a new 401(k) program, and promulgation of a new
employee handbook and effectuating an internal complaint procedure contained therein.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind our overly broad work rules prohibiting union solicitation or distribution of
union material during working hours.
WE WILL on request by the Union, rescind the above-mentioned unilateral changes in the terms
and conditions of employment, and rescind any discipline issued to unit employees as a result
of the unilateral implementation of rules contained in the employee handbook, remove any
discipline from its files and so inform the employees when that has been done and make them
whole for any losses suffered as result of the unilateral implementation of the work rules
contained in the handbook with interest in accordance with applicable decisions.
WE WILL on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the above-mentioned appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL 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
JD–45–07
Tecumseh, MI
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.
TECUMSEH PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, INC.
(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.
477 Michigan Avenue, Federal Building, Room 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2569
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
313-226-3200.
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, 313-226-3244.