Alliant Foodservice

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2001

335 N.L.R.B. 695 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE 695
Alliant Foodservice, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO

United Service Employees Union, Local 1222 and
Teamsters Local 628, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Cases 4–CA–27669, 4–
CA–27913, and 4–CB–8242
August 27, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND TRUESDALE
On December 3, 1999, Administrative Law Judge
Richard H. Beddow Jr. issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel and Respondents filed exceptions and
supporting briefs, the Charging Party and Respondent
Alliant Foodservice, Inc. filed answering briefs, and the
Charging Party filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings,2 and conclusions as
modified herein and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified and set forth in full below.

1 We find no merit in Respondent Alliant Foodservice’s contention
that it was denied due process at the hearing. Contrary to Alliant, we
find the judge did not preclude it from effectively examining and cross-
examining witnesses. We also find that Alliant was not prejudiced by
the judge’s refusal to order the Charging Party, Teamsters Local 628, to
comply with a subpoena requesting, inter alia, all authorization cards
showing support for Local 628. Local 628 failed to produce duplicate
cards signed by employees Foth and McQuilken in response to the
subpoena because they were not used to support Local 628’s represen-
tation petitions. The judge, however, ordered both cards to be produced
at the hearing, and they were produced. It is thus immaterial that the
judge did not base his ruling on the subpoena. Finally, we agree with
the judge, for the reasons discussed in his decision, that Alliant was not
prejudiced by the judge’s refusal to extend the hearing in order to re-
ceive testimony from employees Mendez and Groves.
2 Respondent Alliant Foodservice has excepted to some of the
judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to
overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they
are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950),
enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
We reject Alliant’s contention that the judge should have drawn an
adverse inference from the General Counsel’s failure to call employees
Foy, Groves, and Gatti to authenticate their authorization cards for
Teamsters Local 628. None of those individuals were shown to be
favorably disposed to the General Counsel or to Local 628 (all three
signed cards for Respondent Local 1222 as well as for Local 628). We
therefore cannot assume that the employees would have testified ad-
versely to the General Counsel and to Local 628 had they been called
as witnesses. International Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122,
1122–1123 (1987).
1. The judge found that Respondent Alliant Foodser-
vice, Inc. violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) by recognizing
Respondent United Service Employees Union, Local
1222 as the representative of its drivers and warehouse
employees at a time when Local 1222 did not represent a
majority of the employees in the bargaining unit, and that
Local 1222 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by accepting
recognition. The judge also found that the Respondents
violated Sections 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2), respectively, by entering into a collective-bargaining
agreement containing a union-security clause.
The judge based his findings on the fact that, although,
at the time Alliant extended recognition, a majority of the
employees in the bargaining unit had signed cards au-
thorizing Local 1222 to act as their bargaining agent, 16
of those employees had also signed cards designating the
Charging Party, Teamsters Local 628, as their represen-
tative. As the judge correctly noted, the Board has long
held that, when an employee has signed cards for two
unions, the card of neither union will be considered a
valid designation that can be used to support a finding of
majority support of that union, unless the record estab-
lishes that “at the time material to the determination of
the issue of majority status, the dual card signer intended
only one of his dual cards—and which of them—to evi-
dence his designation of a bargaining agent.”3 Accord-
ingly, the judge found that the cards signed by the 16
dual card signers could not be relied on to establish Local
1222’s majority status. And, as he further found, without
those cards, Local 1222 lacked a showing of majority
support.
We agree with the judge’s findings and conclusions,
for the reasons set forth in his decision, with one excep-
tion. One of the dual card signers, Daniel Carboni, testi-
fied that when he signed his authorization card for Team-
sters Local 628, the Teamsters business agent who gave
him the card told him that the “whole purpose” of sign-
ing the card was to have an election.4 When an em-
ployee signs a card that, like the cards for Teamsters Lo-

In the remedy section of his decision, the judge inadvertently stated
that Respondent Alliant violated Sec. 8(a)(5). No such violation was
alleged or found. We correct the error.
3 Crest Containers Corp., 223 NLRB 739, 741 (1976), quoted in
Katz’s Deli, 316 NLRB 318, 329–330 (1995), enfd. 80 F.3d 755 (2d
Cir. 1996). See also, e.g., Human Development Assn., 293 NLRB 1228
(1989), enfd. 937 F.2d 657 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Flatbush Manor Care
Center, 287 NLRB 457, 458, 471–472 (1987); Allied Supermarkets,
Inc., 169 NLRB 927 (1968); and Ace Sample Card Co., 46 NLRB 129,
130–131 (1942).
4 Contrary to Alliant, there is no evidence that organizers for Local
628 made such statements to any other employee.
335 NLRB No. 57
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 696
cal 628, clearly states that the employee is designating
the union as his bargaining representative, the card will
be found to establish the employee’s support for the un-
ion as his bargaining agent even if he is also told that one
purpose of the card is to make an election possible. By
contrast, if the union organizer solicits cards by repre-
senting that the only purpose of signing cards is to obtain
an election, any cards signed as a result of such represen-
tations cannot be used to establish the majority status of
the union.5 In these circumstances, we shall not rely on
Carboni’s card as supporting Teamsters Local 628; ac-
cordingly, the card he signed for Local 1222 is valid evi-
dence of his support for that union. Even counting Car-
boni’s support, however, Local 1222 lacked the support
of a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit, and
we affirm the judge’s finding to that effect.6
Our dissenting colleague would overrule the “dual
card” cases, and would count all cards signed by em-
ployees for Local 1222 and Local 628 as demonstrating
support for those unions, even those signed by the “dual
card” signers. She would infer that the employees who
signed cards for both unions meant, by doing so, to indi-
cate that they desired union representation and that either
union would be an acceptable representative.
We reject our colleague’s position, for several reasons.
First, the inference she would draw is inconsistent with
the language of the authorization cards which the em-
ployees signed. Those cards do not indicate that the
signer harbors a generalized desire for union representa-
tion and that either union would be acceptable as a bar-
gaining agent. They state unequivocally that the union
identified on the card is designated or authorized to act as
the employee’s representative. Indeed, some of the cards
for Local 1222 also state that the signer is revoking any
contrary designation. Thus, the plain language of the
cards indicates that the employee has chosen the union
whose name appears on the card—and only that union—
as his exclusive representative.
Second, contrary to our colleague, it does not follow
that an employee who has signed dual cards would be
satisfied with representation by either union. It is at least
as logical to infer that when an employee who signs a
card for one union later signs a card for a second union,
the employee has changed his mind and now wishes to
be represented by the second union. Here, all but one of
the dual card signers signed cards for Teamsters Local
628 after they signed cards for Local 1222. If anything,

5 Levi Strauss & Co., 172 NLRB 732, 733 (1968), enfd. 441 F.2d
1027 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
6 Only 51 employees out of a unit of 115 signed cards for Local
1222 alone. Thus, even counting Carboni, Local 1222 lacked majority
support.
then, it would be more logical to conclude that those em-
ployees abandoned their support of Local 1222 in favor
of Local 628 than to conclude that either union would be
acceptable as their representative.
Third, the fundamental problem with our colleague’s
approach is that it is inconsistent with the Board’s long-
standing (if tacit) policy requiring employees to make an
explicit choice of which, if any, union is to be their ex-
clusive bargaining representative. That policy is most
evident in Board-conducted elections. In a multiunion
election, employees who desire union representation
must vote for one, and only one, union regardless of
whether they would find more than one acceptable. If an
employee votes for more than one of the contending un-
ions, his ballot will not be counted. The Board has uni-
formly, and wisely, followed the same policy in deter-
mining whether a union has established its majority
status on the basis of a card count instead of an election.
In that context, the Board also requires employees to
make an unambiguous choice between competing un-
ions. Those who do not, including those who sign cards
for more than one union, are not counted as supporting
either union. Unlike our colleague, we can discern no
persuasive reason for abandoning that policy.
Our colleague asserts that our position is “flatly incon-
sistent with the language typically contained on union
authorization cards.” We disagree. The card-signer
typically designates the union as his/her exclusive repre-
sentative. And, even without that express language, that
is the purpose for which our colleague would use the
card. However, by definition, there cannot be two exclu-
sive representatives. Further, there is nothing on the card
which supports the “either union” construction of our
colleague. That is, the card does not say that the em-
ployee wants union A if he/she cannot have union B.
Thus, one cannot definitively infer any clear choice by
the dual-card signers. Accordingly, it is far better to re-
solve these matters by an election.
Our dissenting colleague argues that the recognition
of, and contract with, Local 1222 would not impede the
processing of an RC petition by Local 628 (assuming
that Local 628 had a 30-percent showing of interest).
The flaw in this reasoning is that, under her view, the
election would be between a union with recognition and
a contract and a union that is out in the cold. Under our
approach, there would be a level playing field, i.e., the
election would be held only after Local 1222 is shorn of
its recognition and contract.7
7 Under Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, 320 NLRB 844 (1996), an
employer’s lawful recognition of union A (based on majority cards
signed solely for Union A) will not preclude a petition by union B, if
union B had a 30-percent showing before the election. However, in the
ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE 697
Finally, contrary to our colleague, we do not believe
that the Board’s treatment of dual cards unnecessarily
dissuades employers from voluntarily recognizing unions
that claim majority support. We acknowledge that an
employer, like Alliant, could recognize a union in good
faith and unwittingly violate Section 8(a)(2) if, it turns
out, majority support does not, in fact, exist. Most such
cases, however, can be settled promptly (without the
formal finding of a violation) by the employer’s with-
drawing recognition and by testing the actual support of
the competing unions through an election. Such an ap-
proach is normally expeditious and inexpensive and im-
putes no blameworthiness to the employer. Accordingly,
we doubt that the dual card doctrine poses a significant
impediment to voluntary recognition.
2. As part of the remedy for the violations, the judge
recommended that Teamsters Local 628 be afforded ac-
cess to Alliant’s premises and that notices be read to the
assembled employees by a Board agent.8 Alliant has
excepted to the imposition of those extraordinary reme-
dies, and we find merit in the exception. Although Al-
liant unlawfully recognized Local 1222, there is no evi-
dence that it did so in anything other than good faith, and
it did not engage in other repeated, serious, and pervasive
misconduct.9 Accordingly, we shall impose only the
Board’s normal remedies for such violations.10
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Alliant Foodservice, Inc., Swedesboro, New
Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from

instant case, there is no lawful recognition of union A (Local 1222).
Employees signed cards for both unions, and they did so in sufficient
numbers to destroy the majority status of Local 1222. Thus, there is no
valid basis for giving Local 1222 the advantage of incumbency in any
election.
8 See Wallace International of Puerto Rico, 328 NLRB 29, 30 (1999).
9 This case is thus plainly distinguishable from Wallace.
10 We agree with the General Counsel that the employees who must be
reimbursed for dues and fees paid pursuant to the union-security clause of
the collective-bargaining agreement between Alliant and Local 1222 are
all those who did not join Local 1222 voluntarily before the contract
became effective. See, e.g., Cascade General, 303 NLRB 656, 657 fn. 14
(1991), enfd. 9 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 511 U.S. 1052
(1994); Human Development Assn., 293 NLRB at 1229. Interest on
refunded dues and fees shall be computed in the manner prescribed in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). We shall delete
from the recommended Order the provision that Alliant is not authorized
to withdraw or eliminate any improvements in wages, benefits, or other
terms and conditions of employment that may have been established
pursuant to the contract. Cascade General, 303 NLRB at 657 fn. 14. We
shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance with our
recent decision in Ferguson Electric Co, 335 NLRB 142 (2001). Finally,
we shall substitute the Board’s standard remedial language for certain
portions of the judge’s recommended Order.
(a) Recognizing or dealing with United Service Em-
ployees Union, Local 1222 as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees at a time when that labor
organization does not represent a majority of such em-
ployees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
(b) Giving effect to or enforcing the collective-
bargaining agreement executed with Local 1222 or to
any extension, renewal, or modification of it; provided,
however, that nothing in this Order shall require the
withdrawal or elimination of any wage increase or other
benefits or terms and conditions of employment that may
have been established pursuant to the performance of the
contract.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local
1222 as the collective-bargaining representative of its
employees unless and until Local 1222 has been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
(b) Jointly and severally with Local 1222, reimburse
its employees for any money required to be paid pursuant
to the collective-bargaining agreement between Alliant
and Local 1222, including money paid for initiation fees,
dues, or other obligations of membership in Local 1222,
plus interest.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amounts owed to employ-
ees under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Swedesboro, New Jersey facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix A.”11 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized 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
11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 698
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, 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 facil-
ity involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time November 6,
1998.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions copies of Appendix B as soon as it is forwarded by
the Regional Director.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, United Service Employees Union, Local
1222, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Acting as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of employees of Alliant Foodservice, Inc. at a
time when it does not represent a majority of those em-
ployees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
(b) Giving effect to or attempting to enforce the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between it and Alliant
Foodservice, Inc. or to any extension, renewal, or modi-
fication thereof.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing 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 purposes of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Alliant Foodservice,
Inc., reimburse employees for any money required to be
paid pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement
between Alliant and Local 1222, including money paid
for initiation fees, dues, or other obligations of member-
ship in Local 1222, plus interest.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its business office, meeting halls, and places where no-
tices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix B.”12 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.

12 See fn. 12, infra.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of
the notice for posting by Alliant Foodservice, Inc. Cop-
ies of the notice to be furnished by the Regional Director
shall, after being signed by Respondent Local 1222, be
returned forthwith to the Regional Director.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

MEMBER LIEBMAN, dissenting.
Board precedent holds that when an employee signs
authorization cards for two unions, the cards cannot be
considered reliable evidence of the employee’s selection
of either union as his bargaining representative.1 Here,
Respondent Alliant Foodservice, Inc. extended recogni-
tion to Respondent United Service Employees Union,
Local 1222 on the basis of a card check which revealed
that a clear majority of the employees in the drivers and
warehouse employees unit had signed cards designating
Local 1222 as their bargaining agent. Unbeknownst to
either Respondent, however, by the time Alliant recog-
nized Local 1222, Teamsters Local 628 had also ob-
tained authorization cards from a number of employees,
including 16 who had signed cards for Local 1222. Ac-
cordingly, my colleagues agree with the judge that the
cards signed by 15 of the dual card signers cannot be
used to show support for Local 1222, and that without
those cards, Local 1222 lacked the support of a majority
of the unit employees. They therefore affirm the judge’s
finding that Alliant and Local 1222 violated Section
8(a)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A), respectively, by extending and
accepting recognition and violated Section 8(a)(3) and
8(b)(2), respectively, by entering into a collective-
bargaining agreement containing a union-security clause.
I disagree. In my view, the Board’s “dual card” doc-
trine is based on dubious reasoning and frustrates the
policies of the Act. When an employee signs authoriza-
tion cards for two unions, the Board refuses to infer that
the employee supports either union. That refusal, how-
ever, is flatly inconsistent with the language typically
contained on union authorization cards. The cards
signed for both Local 1222 and Local 628 expressly state
that the signer authorizes the union in question to act as
his collective-bargaining representative. It is reasonable
to infer that an employee who signs dual cards with that
1 See, e.g., Crest Containers Corp., 223 NLRB 739, 741–742
(1976).
ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE 699
language is implicitly stating that he wants union repre-
sentation and would be prepared to be represented by
either union for which he signed a card.
Accordingly, I would overrule the “dual card” cases
and find that, when an employee signs authorization
cards for more than one union, each card is evidence of
support for that union as the employee’s bargaining agent
and should be counted when the Board is seeking to de-
termine whether that union has majority support. (Where
a subsequently signed card states that the signer is revok-
ing a prior, contrary designation, I would honor the revo-
cation, however.)
Applying that reasoning to the facts of this case, I
would find that Alliant did not extend recognition to a
minority union by recognizing Local 1222, and that Lo-
cal 1222 did not act unlawfully by accepting recogni-
tion.2
Under my approach, there would be no impediment to
holding a Board election to determine whether the em-
ployees preferred Local 1222 or Local 628 as their repre-
sentative. The Board has held that where rival unions are
attempting to organize a group of employees, the em-
ployer’s lawful recognition of one union will not bar a
petition by the competing union if the petitioner demon-
strates a 30 percent showing of interest that predates the
recognition.3 Thus, Local 628’s attempts to organize
and represent Alliant’s employees could go forward. If
Local 628 could show that it had the support of at least
30 percent of the unit employees when Alliant recog-
nized Local 1222, it could obtain a Board election; if it
won, it would replace Local 1222 as the employees’ rep-
resentative. Consequently, the protection afforded by the
Board’s election machinery is ample to safeguard Local
628’s legitimate interests and employee free choice.4
Employers, meanwhile, should be encouraged to rec-
ognize unions voluntarily when they can demonstrate

2 Teamsters Local 628 did not file its representation petitions until
after Alliant recognized Local 1222. Accordingly, there was no im-
pediment to the extension of recognition on a showing that Local 1222
had the support of a majority of the unit employees. Bruckner Nursing
Home, 262 NLRB 955, 957 (1982).
3 Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, 320 NLRB 844, 846 (1996).
4 Moreover, the election process will be, in most cases, much more
expeditious than attempting to oust an incumbent union through the
filing and processing of unfair labor practice charges.
My colleagues object that an election held in these circumstances
would be between a recognized union with a contract (Local 1222) and
a union that is “out in the cold” (Local 628). They insist that, in order
to have a “level playing field,” the election should be held “only after
Local 1222 is shorn of its recognition and contract.” However, Smith
Food, envisions an election being held between a recognized union and
a union that is “out in the cold.”
majority support.5 The Board’s “dual card” policy, in
contrast, discourages employers from granting recogni-
tion to unions that apparently command the support of a
majority of employees. Employers will predictably be
reluctant to extend recognition, knowing that their ac-
tions can be found unlawful if, it turns out, the employ-
ees have also signed cards for a rival union.
Because I would find that Alliant lawfully recognized
Local 1222, I would also find that the parties did not act
unlawfully by entering into a contract containing a un-
ion-security clause. When recognition has been lawfully
extended, the parties are entitled to engage in bargaining
and to conclude and enforce a collective-bargaining
agreement, even if another union appears on the scene
and petitions for recognition. If the challenging union
wins the election, the incumbent union is unseated and
the contract becomes null and void.6
For all of the foregoing reasons, I would find that the
Respondents did not act unlawfully in this case. I there-
fore respectfully dissent.
APPENDIX A
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT recognize or deal with United Service
Employees Union, Local 1222 as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees at a time
when it is not the representative of a majority of such
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT give effect to or enforce our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Local 1222 or to any
extension, renewal, or modification of it; provided, how-
ever, that nothing in the Board’s Order requires the with-
5 “Voluntary recognition is a favored element of national labor pol-
icy.” NLRB v. Broadmoor Lumber Co., 578 F.2d 238, 241 (9th Cir.
1978).
6 Air La Carte, 284 NLRB 471, 472–473 (1987).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 700
drawal or elimination of any wage increase or other
benefits or terms and conditions of employment that may
have been established pursuant to the performance of the
contract.
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 withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Local 1222 as the collective-bargaining representative of
our employees unless and until it has been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive rep-
resentative of such employees.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Local 1222, re-
imburse our employees for any money required to be
paid pursuant to our collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 1222, including money paid for initiation
fees, dues, or other obligations of membership in Local
1222, plus interest.

ALLIANT FOODSERVICE, INC.

APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of any of Alliant Foodservice’s
employees unless and until we are certified by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect or attempt to enforce our
collective-bargaining agreement with Alliant Foodser-
vice or to any extension renewal or modification thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Alliant Foodser-
vice, reimburse employees for any money required to be
paid pursuant to our collective-bargaining agreement
with Alliant, including money paid for initiation fees,
dues, or other obligations of union membership, plus
interest.

UNITED SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL
1222

Henry R. Protas, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jedd Mendelson, Esq., of Roseland, New Jersey, for the Respondent Employer.
Gary P. Rothman, Esq., of Elmsford, New York, for the Respondent Union.
David A. Gaudioso, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD H. BEDDOW JR., Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard in Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, on May 19 through 21, 1999. Subsequent to an extension in the filing date,
briefs were filed by all parties.1 The proceeding is based upon a charge filed November 18,
1998.2 by Teamsters Local 628, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO. The
Regional Director’s consolidated complaint dated April 29, 1999, alleges that Respondent
Alliant Food Service, Inc., of Swedelsboro, New Jersey, violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act by voluntarily recognizing United Service Employees Union
Local 1222 (Local 1222) at a time that it did not represent a majority of the bargaining unit; and
by entering into, maintaining and giving effect to a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
1222 that contained a union-security agreement; and that Respondent Local 1222 engaged in
correlative violations of Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.3
Upon a review of the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a wholesale distributor of food products. It annually ships goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from its New Jersey location to points outside New Jersey and it admits that
at all times material is and has been an employer engaged in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5), and (7) of the Act. Respondent Local 1222 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and it also is admitted that Union
Local 628 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Employer’s Swedesboro warehouse and truck terminal is operated by 115 employees.
Prior to November 6, Local 1222 had solicited and obtained signed authorization cards from
these employees and demanded that it be recognized as the representative of the employees in
the following bargaining unit:

All full time and regular part time drivers and warehouse employees employed by the Employer
at the Warehouse, excluding office personnel, clericals and supervisors as defined in the Act.

1 The brief of the Charging Party seeks the admission of a late filed
exhibit, a letter dated July 7, 1999, from Local 1222 to the employer.
Both Local 1222 and the Employee oppose its admission. Under the
circumstances, including my conclusions and recommended remedy, I
am not persuaded that good cause is shown that would warrant a grant-
ing of the relief request and, accordingly, the request is denied.
2 All following dates will be in 1998 unless otherwise indicated.
3 Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into
a Board settlement (GC Exh. 25). The following consolidated com-
plaint allegations were settled: Pars. 5, 7(a), 7(b), 8, 9(a), 9(c) and 10
and those portions of pars. 11–14 which refer to these paragraphs.
ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE 701
On November 6, the Employer and Local 1222 entered into an agreement whereby they
designated an arbitrator to compare signatures on union authorization cards alleged by Local
1222 to have been signed by employees and to determine whether there were cards appearing to
bear authentic signatures from more than 50 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.
The card check took place at a motel in Bridgeport, New Jersey, starting at 7 a.m. Local 1222
presented 67 signed cards and the company provided executed W-4 forms for the employees
that were employed in the job classifications Local 1222 sought to represent. After comparing
the signatures on the 67 authorization cards and the W-4 forms, the arbitrator determined that
65 authorization cards were authentic and bore the signatures of Alliant employees. As a result,
he concluded that a majority of Alliant’s employees had signed authorization cards for Local
1222 and immediately thereafter the company and Local 1222 signed a recognition agreement.
At the end of February the employer and Local 1222 began negotiating a labor agreement
and on April 1, they concluded negotiations and, following ratification, executed a collective-
bargaining agreement covering the drivers, warehouse employees and mechanics effective
March 12, 1999, through March 13, 2002.
At about the same time that Local 1222 procured its authorization cards from bargaining
unit employees, Teamsters Local 628 attempted to organize the same unit employees. Team-
sters’ secretary-treasurer, Jack Quigley, had received inquiries from some of the employees as
early as the summer of 1998. However, it was not until he received a phone call on October 25,
about the activities of Local 1222 that the Teamsters actively initiated a campaign. Teamster’s
vice president and business agent, John Dagle, then held two formal employee meetings at its
union hall located in Philadelphia. The first was on October 31 and on November 4, Dagle
gave blank Teamsters authorization cards to employee Francis Crane who immediately began
to solicit signatures.
The first of the 16 employees to sign a card for the Teamsters was driver Vincent Cordua
who described how he was driving from work on Wednesday (November 4), when he received
a message on his beeper to stop by employee Don Malak’s house. Cordua telephoned Malak,
who told him that Francis Crane would be there with authorization cards. Cordua waited for
Crane at Malak’s house and then was given a Teamster’s card, which he read, signed, and
dated.
On November 5 other drivers were solicited to sign cards between 5 and 6 a.m., at work be-
fore they left the warehouse in their trucks. Drivers David Lex and Francis Kinsella received
authorization card from Crane in the drivers’ locker room. Crane watched as Lex signed and
dated it. Kinsella filled out the card, signed, and dated it and returned it immediately to Crane
(Kinsella recalls that that it was daylight when he signed the card and he thinks he signed it in
the morning). Drivers Donald Pancoast and Antonio Mendez were given union authorization
cards by Crane first thing in the morning, November 5. Pancoast sat in the drivers’ room, read
the top of the card, filled it out, signed, and dated it, and returned it to Crane. Mendez took the
card to the locker room and turned his back to Crane, then turned and gave him a filled in,
signed, and dated card (no one else was present). Driver Kevin Merk recalled that he was given
his authorization card by either Crane or Don Malak between 5 and 5:30 a.m. on November 5
while at a desk in the drivers’ room where he signed and dated the card. Driver Gilbert Melilli
also got an authorization card from Crane in the drivers’ locker room and signed and dated the
card between 5:15 and 6a.m. on November 5 and returned the executed card to Don Malak.
Driver Raymond McQuilken was given a Teamster’s authorization card by driver Michael
McKeown in the drivers’ room on November 5, and he filled out the entire card but he could
not recall whether he did so in the morning or the afternoon.
Drivers Daniel Carboni and Timothy Ciccimaro, who were not scheduled to work on No-
vember 5, went to the Teamsters’ hall at about 3 p.m. where they were met by Teamsters
Business Agent Dagle who gave both of them authorization cards. Carboni signed and dated
his card and immediately returned it to Dagle. At the end of the workday on November 5,
Malak gave driver John Harley a card out by the loading dock and he signed the card on the
hood of his truck and returned it to Malak. Drivers Harry Ladner, Jr. and Brian McCarthy were
also solicited in the parking lot as they were leaving work and Crane gave each a card. Ladner
immediately filled it out and returned it to Crane. McCarthy recalled that he returned it to
Crane the next day. Driver John Foth could not remember who gave him his card but recalled
that he signed it at home on November 5 when he received it, and he returning the card to
Crane the next day.
Crane solicited more cards from employees the next morning before work between 5 and
5:30 a.m. The cards he received were signed before at the latest 6 a.m., because at that point all
the drivers would have been on the road. Crane gave a card to driver Alfred Gatti in the
drivers’ room and watched as Gatti read, signed, and returned the card. Crane gave a card to
driver John Groves either in the drivers’ room or in the locker room. He did not watch Groves
fill out the card but he recalled that they were the only ones in the room and Groves returned it
to him completely filled out. That same morning driver Tim Ciscenaro gave Joe Foy a card and
he immediately filled it out and returned it.
The Teamsters subsequently filed petitions with the Board to represent separate units of the
Employer’s drivers and warehousemen. The showing of interest in support of the petition for
the drivers’ unit included the union authorization cards described above. The date stamps
placed on the cards by the Region establish that as of November 10, 1998, the cards were in the
custody of the Board. Subsequently, on November 14, a second meeting with employees was
held at the union hall but no meeting occurred on November 7.
On April 1, 1999, the Employer and Local 1222 executed a collective-bargaining agreement
(effective March 13, 1999, to March 13, 2002), which includes a union-security clause and dues
have been tendered to Local 1222 pursuant to that clause.
III. DISCUSSION
The General Counsel contends that when, as here, an employee signs authorization cards
for two unions, the employee fails to indicate which union he desires as his bargaining repre-
sentative, and that as a general rule in these circumstances the Board will count neither card
toward establishing majority status. Any evidence needed to overcome the application of this
rule must be of sufficient reliability to leave no doubt that at the time material to the determina-
tion of majority status the employee intended to designate only one of the unions as his repre-
sentative and the identity of the union that the employee intended to designate, see Katz’s
Delicatessen of Houston Street, 316 NLRB 318, 329 (1995).
The employer contends that on the November 6 recognition date, Local 1222 had signed
cards from 68 of the 116 employees in the bargaining unit, or 58 percent. However, if at least
10 of these 68 employees had signed dual cards for Local 628, Local 1222 would not have
reliably established a majority. Although, the General Counsel produced 16 Local 628 authori-
zation cards from purported dual card signers, the Respondent contends that most of their cards
must be disregarded or discounted because most were not properly authenticated. Otherwise,
the General Counsel points out that Local 1222 actually submitted 67 authorization cards to the
arbitrator and it argues that there is proof of 16 valid dual authorization card and therefore the
Employer recognized Local 1222 when only 51 of 115 employees had given it unequivocal
support.
A. Due Process, Credibility, and the Validity of the Charging Party’s Dual Authorization
Cards
On brief the Respondent employer alleges that its due-process rights were violated because
prior to the hearing, the General Counsel refused to identify the alleged dual card signers or the
number of dual cards and because this court then refused its request to adjourn the hearing so
that it could call two rebuttal witnesses. The General Counsel introduced Local 628 authoriza-
tion cards signed by John Groves and Antonio Mendez on Thursday, May 20. At the hearing
on Friday, May 21, the Employer asserted that it was unsuccessful in serving a subpoena on
them because of time factors and the fact that both drivers were on their usual Friday runs.
First, it is noted that the General Counsel attempted to serve Mendez with a subpoena on
Monday, May 17, and he refused both personal services (telling the server that he didn’t want
to get involved), and service by certified mail. Accordingly, I found that there was no reason-
able basis to believe that he would now appear in response to a new subpoena. The record
otherwise shows that the issue to which any testimony would be relevant is the authenticity of
their authorization cards and that the cards have presumptively valid signatures (see the discus-
sion herein) and were the subject of testimony about the circumstances of their execution from
the person who solicited the cards. The record otherwise shows that the Respondent employer
extensively investigated and obtain statements from other of its employees. The Employer
admits that it spoke to Mendez on February 14, heard his verbal statement on when he signed
the card, but did not obtain a written statement (as it apparently had done for other employees)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 702
because it was aware of and assumed that Mendez would appear in response to the General
Counsel’s subpoena.
I then ruled that it would be too burdensome to keep the record open for the speculative tes-
timony of these two witnesses and I concluded that good cause had not been shown to pursue
the matter. An offer of proof was made that each would have testified that they completed the
card for Local 628 on or after November 7, 1998 (it was not alleged that either had signed more
than one card for Local 628). No offer was made regarding any comparison of the signatures of
these two drivers on the cards with their W-4 forms (forms in the custody of the employer) the
method used to authenticate the Local 1222 cards.
The Board’s procedures do not allow for pretrial discovery and, otherwise, I find that the
Respondent’s had a reasonable opportunity to partake in relevant cross examination of all
witnesses presented by the General Counsel. I also find that the witnesses it wished to question
were it own current employees, under its control and that it has not shown how it has been
prejudiced by the court’s ruling. I also find that the relevation during the trial that at the second
union meeting on November 14 two employees each had signed two separate second authoriza-
tion cards for Local 628 does not vitiate the validity of their first signed and most relevant card
and it does not show “foul play” and the failure of Local 628 to initially produce these docu-
ments is not shown to be prejudicial.
As noted below, I find that the witnesses’ testimony regarding the cards and the circum-
stance under while they were solicited and signed is highly credible and it does not appear
likely that testimony by Mendez and Groves, if contradictory, would be considered to be more
reliable. This would be especially true of Mendez whose testimony would be suspect based on
his previous refusal to honor a subpoena for the reason that he “didn’t want to get involved.” I
also conclude that Grove’s Local 628 authorization card clearly dated November 6, 1998 and
signed is a valid card as is that signed by Mendez on November 5, 1998, and I find that each
card should be credited and found to be trustworthy.
The authenticity of the Local 628 authorization card also was established by the testimony
of driver Crane who distributed and observed the circumstance until the cards he gave out were
returned. He did this with the cards for Groves and Mendez (discussed above) and Alfred
Gatti, each of whom did not testify in person, as well as with seven or more other card signers
who did testify and described the similar circumstances under which they had obtained cards
from Crane (or Malak, or Dagle) and had dated and returned these authorization cards. Accord-
ingly, I reaffirm my evidentiary ruling made at the trial.
The back of the authorization cards have no preprinted matter and they contain only a No-
vember 10, 1998 date stamp by the Board’s Regional Office. The front of the card is headed:

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 628

I, the undersigned, of my own free will, desire to become a member of Local 628, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and by doing, designate said union as my chosen
representative in all matters pertaining to wages, hours and working conditions.

The card then provides for the insertion of the date, name, address, phone, years of service, and
name of employer, job classification, shift, department and rate of pay, and signature. Each
employee witness called by the General Counsel inspected his Local 628 authorization card
authenticated the card and attested to the fact that the card bore his signature. Each also indi-
cated that he was not coerced or promised any benefit prior to signing the card and each en-
dured extensive voir dire and cross examination.
I carefully noted the demeanor of each witness and I find that the testimony of each dual
card signer was trustworthy and credible in all significant respects, especially the date and the
circumstance when the card was signed. As noted, 12 of the cards were authenticated by the
card signers and 4 were authenticated by the solicitor. It is well established that the date
entered on a card by the card signer raises an inference that the card was signed on the inscribed
date. See Tall Pines Inn, 268 NLRB 1392 fn. 30, (1984); Palby Lingerie, 252 NLRB 176
(1980); and Cato Show Printing Co., 219 NLRB 739, 756 (1975). Here, I find that there is no
showing that any of the cards were not authentic or were obtained by any misrepresentation or
coercion and, as stated in DTR Industries, 311 NLRB 833, 840 (1993);

[W]here as here, the purpose of the card is set forth on its face in unambiguous language, the
Board may not, in the absence of misrepresentations, inquire into the subjective motives or un-
derstanding of the card signer to determine what the signer intended to do by signing the card.

Although the Respondents’ question the reliability of this testimony in general, Respondent
Local 1222 in effect concede that 10 of the 16 cards proffered by the General Counsel are valid
but specifically challenge the card signed by drivers Harley, Ladner, Pancoast, McCarthy, and
McDulkin dated on November 5 and Cordua’s card dated on November 4. Of the 16 “Duel”
cards, 1 card is dated November 4, 12 were dated on November 5, including that of John Foth
(who testified that his card was filled out at home that day but did not return it until November
6), and 3 were dated November 6.
The Respondent Union points out that Cordua’s affidavit to
the Board incorrectly states that he never signed a card for Local
1222 and that he put an incorrect phone number on his Local 628
card. It also argues that Harley did not recall which route he
drove on November 5, he did not insert his correct length of ser-
vice on his card, and he did not recall, until cross-examination
and confrontation with a revocative form, that he had seen such a
form. The Union points out that Kinsella recalled that he signed
a revocation form prior to his Local 628 authorization card (dated
November 5) but that revocation was dated November 14 and it
shows that Ladner gave the Employer’s counsel or statement
agreeing that he was handed a Local 628 card the week of No-
vember 9 after an asserted November 7 union meeting. He also
initially did not recognize a blank revocation form but immedi-
ately recalled and recognized signing one after being shown one
with his signature. Ladner, however, testified that when he gave
the Employer’s counsel a statement he wasn’t sure of the dates
and had not personally attended the union meeting. He also testi-
fied he was sure that his Local 628 card was properly dated on
the November 5 because he had been at work where he was writ-
ing that day’s date on paperwork all day long and the date was
there on his clipboard.
Pancoast gave the employer’s counsel a statement that he signed his Local 628 card at a
Saturday (November. 7) union meeting and he testified that he signed his revocation form the
same day, however the actual documents reflect the dates of November 5 and 14, respectively,
and he testified that he “thought” he signed them together at work, but apparently did not. Prior
to the hearing, McCarthy signed a statement for the employer’s counsel that stated he signed a
Local 628 card on November 7. The card was dated November 5, however and he testified that
all the handwriting on the card was his and that he dates documents with the date he signs them
and did not backdate the authorization card.
Although there are some inconsistencies or ambiguities in the record regarding some of the
drivers’ testimony, the authorization card itself is the primary item of evidence and the date and
circumstances of its execution was affirmed in each instance in direct testimony under my
direct observation. I find that the failure of witnesses to sometime remember dates and exact
circumstance or to remember events in precisely the same as other witnesses does not make a
witnesses’ testimony any less honest. I find that the testimony I observed an demonstrated
attempt by each witness to give truthful answers to the best of their ability and I find that this
testimony under my observation is more credible that the answers given under the unknown
circumstance in which the drivers were privately questioned by the employer’s counsel or the
Board’s investigating agent. Accordingly, I conclude that the 16 Local 628 authorization cards
presented by the General Counsel are authentic and I find they were signed and dated as shown
on the cards themselves. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that only 4 days passed
(including a Saturday and Sunday), between November 6 when the last three cards were signed
and November 10, when the cards were transferred to the custody of the Board and thus there
was little opportunity to generate or execute some speculative plot to predate or generate false
documentation.
ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE 703
B. Majority Status
On November 6, when the employer granted Local 1222 recognition, it relied upon the rec-
ognition of 67 authorization card of 115 bargaining unit employees who had designated Local
1222 as their collective-bargaining representative. The General Counsel, however, has pre-
sented evidence that 16 of these same 67 employees also had signed union authorization cards
for the Teamsters prior to the time recognition was granted. Specifically, I find that the General
Counsel has established that John Harley, David Lex, Francis X. Kinsella Jr., Harry Ladner Jr.,
Donald Pancoast, John Foth, Alfred Gatti, John Groves, Antonio Mendez, Joseph Foy, Kevin
Merk, Vincent Cordua, Brian McCarthy, Raymond McQuilken, Gilbert Melilli, and Daniel
Carboni were dual card signers and, under these circumstances, none of their cards can be
counted towards establishing either union’s majority status, see the Katz’s Delicatessen card,
supra. Thus, the employer recognized Local 1222 at a time when there was evidence that only
51 out of 115 unit employees supported Local 1222.
C. Violations of the Act
An asserted good-faith belief that a union is the majority representative is no defense to the
allegation that recognition was unlawfully extended to a minority union. Ladies Garment
Workers (Berhard-Altmann Corp.) v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731 (1961), and an employer violates
Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by granting recognition and/or entering into a collective-
bargaining agreement with a labor organization which does not enjoy the support of a majority
of the employees in the bargaining unit. By the same token, a labor organization in this cir-
cumstance violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by accepting recognition and/or entering into
a collective-bargaining agreement. See the Ladies Garment Workers case, supra.
Here, the record clearly shows that on November 6, 1998, the Employer and Local 1222
entered into a recognition agreement whereby the Employer recognized this Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all full-time and regular part-time drivers and
warehouse employees employed by the Employer at the warehouse. Furthermore, and despite
the pendency of the charges in this proceeding, on April 1, 1999, the Employer and Local 1222
executed a collective-bargaining agreement. I find that by engaging in this conduct the Em-
ployer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act and Local 1222 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, as alleged, see Katz’s Delicatessen, supra, and Human Development Assn., 293 NLRB
1228 (1989).
It also is shown that the collective-bargaining agreement enter into and maintained by the
Employer and Local 1222 contains a union-security clause and that dues have been tendered
under this provision. It is a separate violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act when
an employer enters into and maintains a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union-
security clause when the labor organization does not enjoy the support of a majority of the
employees in the bargaining unit, and the labor organization in this circumstance violates
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by entering into and maintaining an agreement with such
a clause, see St. Helens Shop N’Kart, 311 NLRB 1281, 1285 (1993); Famous Castings Corp.,
301 NLRB 404, 408 (1991). Accordingly, I also find that by engaging in this conduct, the
employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act and Local 1222 violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Alliant Foodservice, Inc. is an Employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union United Service Employees Union Local 1222 and Charging Party
Union Teamsters Local 628, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO are each a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Alliant has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by recognizing
Local 1222 and signing a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 1222 containing a union-
security clause.
4. Respondent Local 1222 has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by accepting
recognition from, and signing a contract with, Respondent Alliant, which contained a union-
security clause.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) and Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, respectively, I shall ordered that they cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
While it is found that a disestablishment order is necessary and appropriate, nothing here
shall authorize or require the withdrawal or elimination of any wage increase or other benefits,
or terms and conditions of employment that may have been established pursuant to the per-
formance of the collective-bargaining agreement between Local 1222 and the employer, see
Katz’s Deli, supra, at 334. Also, to the extent that the Respondent’s union-security provision
has resulted in the expenditure of initiation fees, dues, or other obligations of membership to
dual card signers, as well as any employees hired after execution of the collective-bargaining
agreement, such payments were derived from an unlawful agreement with a union that did not
have clear majority status, and they are inherently coercive and should be reimbursed, with
interest, see the discussion in NLRB v. Katz’s Delicatessen, 80 F.3d 755, 770 (2d Cir. 1996)
While the Charging Party contends that because of a claimed
inability to obtain a fair election in the future, it is entitled to a
remedial bargaining order or an order that would exclude Local
1222 from the ballot in the event that a representation election be
ordered, I find that adequate safeguards can be imposed through
the imposition of special remedies that should dissipate as much
as possible any lingering effect of each Respondent’s unfair labor
practices. Accordingly, it is recommended that the employees be
given a fair opportunity to choose in an election which union, if
any, they desire as their collective-bargaining representative.
Although the pending representation petitions filed by the Charg-
ing Party are not a direct part of this proceeding, it is further rec-
ommended that if the Regional Director shall direct an election in
those matters that he impose conditions which provide appropri-
ate access for Teamsters Local 628 and which further provide for
the reading and posting of appropriate noncoercive assurances by
both of the Respondents’ in a format consistent with, but not
limited too, the directions of the Board in Wallace International
of Puerto Rico, 328 NLRB 29 (1999).
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]