Atlas Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 823 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

ATLAS I.UMBER COMPANY
Atlas Lumber Company and General Teamsters Local
326, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica
Local Union 522, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America and General Teamsters Local 326, a/" In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 4
CA-8736 and 4- CB 3162
August 24, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MMl BI RS JINKINS
AND MItRPtIl
On April 26, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Joel
A. Harmatz issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Employer and Re-
spondent Local 522 filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the General Counsel filed a brief in an-
swer to Respondents' exceptions and briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and, with the modifications below, has decided to
affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom-
mended Order, as modified herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent Employer violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act when it recognized Respon-
dent Local 522 and entered into a contract with that
organization, and that Respondent Local 522 vio-
lated Section 8(b)( I )(A) when it accepted the recog-
nition and contract, because at the time of recogni-
tion Respondent Local 522 did not represent a
majority of the employees in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit.' In view of this finding, we consider it
unnecessary to pass upon the Midwest Piping theory
of violation also relied on by the Administrative I aw
Judge.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent Em-
plover, Atlas Lumber Company, Camden, New Jer-
se\. its officers, agents. successors, and assigns, and
the Respondent Union, Local Union 522, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Jamaica, New
York. its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the recommended Order.
as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph A. I. (b) and
appropriately reletter subsequent paragraphs under
A, I:
"Giving effect to. performing, or in any manner
enforcing the collective-bargaining agreement en-
tered into with Respondent local 522 on May 16,
1977. or to anly amendment, supplement, or addition
thereito. unless or until the labor organization has
been certified by the Board as the exclusive bargain-
ing representatise in the appropriate bargaining unit:
provided, however. that nothing herein shall require
Respondent Enmplo(er to vary or abandon any terms
or conditions of employment which have been estab-
lished in the performance of the agreement or to
prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights
then maI have acquired thereunder."
2. Substitute the attached "Appendix A" for that
of the Administrative Law Judge.
See aIrt rnalinli / adw,'C flmt, it -4re'rC U non. .4 FL CIO [0Bernhard-
4litmat I/ea ( o,rfportonti ,r 1 R B, 366 t :S 731 (1961). Although Re-
spondcntI I o.al 522 had ,auihorl.'ti.ho cards from all 10 unit emplosees the
card, icnnilot he relied on i, estahlish its mn.ijoril status. as 9 of the emplos-
ece had also stined authorlatilon cards in behalf of l.ocal 326. and. conse-
quentl\, ambiguito exists as to which local they Intended to designate See
( ari (' , 1to,,lltl ( i raipt - ; tt 223 NI.RB '39 (1976) In agreement aith the
Adminlstratle I : i Judge, we find the total evidence Insufficient to estah-
hsh that bh signing the cards In behalf of the Respondent Local 522. the
cinipli,!c, intended to repudiate their earlier authorzation of Local 326
Acc-rdigl. Iuc IIonider Ihe caseC fa.Ictuall diltinguishahle from R Biecrevr
tl,m, -iA 4di, 217 NI RB 22 (l9751
' ldue,/ Pli,. igl andSupjl/ i ('C . In, 63 NL RB 1060 ( 1945
APPENDIX A
NOIl( E TJo EMPL. OY E S
PoSI EI) Be ORDER OF THE
N.\IION sI L\BO()R RELATIONS BOARD
An Agenct of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties were represented
b) their attorneys and afforded the opportunity to
present evidence in support of their respective posi-
tions, it has been found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act in certain respects and
we have been ordered to post this notice and to carry
out its terms.
IThe National Labor Relations Act, gives you, as
employees. certain rights including the right:
237 NLRB No. 87
823
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help a union
To bargain collectively through a represen-
tative of your own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
Accordingly, we give you these assurances.
WE WILt. NOI recognize or deal with General
Teamsters Local 522, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, unless and until that union
has been certified as the exclusive representative
of our employees in the appropriate unit by the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL. NOT give any force or effect to the
agreement made with Local Union 522, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. dated
May 16, 1977, or to any amendment, supple-
ment, or addition thereto, unless or until the la-
bor organization has been certified by the Board
as the exclusive bargaining representative in the
appropriate bargaining unit: provided, however.
that nothing herein shall require Respondent
Employer to vary or abandon any terms or con-
ditions of employment which have been estab-
lished in the performance of the agreement or to
prejudice the assertion by employees of any
rights they may have acquired thereunder.
WE WILi. NOT in any manner assist Local
Union 522, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, to become the representative of our
employees.
WE VvIIL NOI in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
AILAS LUMBFR COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMNrt O. [iHE CASt
JOEL A HARMAIZ. Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on January 3 and
4, 1978, upon a charged filed on June 10, 1977, and a com-
plaint issued on August 25, 1977, alleging that Respondent
Employer violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act and
that Respondent Local 522 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, by their entering into a collective-bargaining
agreement in the face of a claim for recognition by the
Charging Party Local 326. In their respective answers, Re-
spondent Employer and Respondent Local 522 deny that
any unfair labor practices were committed. After close of
the hearing, briefs were filed on behalf of the General
Counsel, the Respondent Employer, and the Respondent
Union.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding., including con-
sideration of the posthearing briefs, and personal observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FA(I
I. URISDICI ION
Respondent Employer since April 15, 1977, has been en-
gaged in the operation of a wholesale lumber business from
its location in Camden, New Jersey. In the course of said
operation Respondent Employer purchased goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located in
States of the United States other than the State of New
Jersey.
The complaint alleges, the answers admit, and I find that
Respondent Employer is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, all parties concede, and I find
that the Charging Part), Local 326 and Respondent Local
522 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The instant controversy relates to competing claims for
employee representation by sister locals of the Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America. Thus, it appears that during the
first month of Respondent Employer's operation as a
wholesale lumber dealer in Camden, New Jersey, Local
326 and Respondent Union, Local 522, both Teamsters
Union affiliates, obtained signed authorization cards from
a majority of the employees involved. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent Employer recognized Local 522 as exclusive rep-
resentative, and executed an agreement to be bound to a
subsisting contract between that Union and a multiem-
ployer association, The Building Supply Dealers of New
Jersey.
The General Counsel challenges the lawfulness of Re-
spondent Employer's action in recognizing Local 522 and
executing said agreement as contravening established
Board policy, which dictates, in the circumstances, a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act on the part of the
former, and an unfair labor practice by Local 522 under
Section 8(a)(l)(A) of the Act. In support, the General
Counsel argues that, as a genuine question concerning rep-
resentation had been raised by Local 326 before recogni-
tion was conferred and a contract executed, said conduct
constitutes unlawful assistance within the meaning of Mid-
west Piping and Supply, Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060 (1945). In
addition, the General Counsel, pursuant to an amendment
824
ATLAS LUMBER COMPANY
to the complaint, also asserts that the alleged unfair labor
practices are substantiated on the further ground that rec-
ognition was conferred under conditions whereby L ocal
522 could not claim to hold majority support among em-
ployees in the appropriate unit. See International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, A FL CIO [Bernhard-Altnlan
Texas Corp.] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731 (1961). In this latter
respect, the General Counsel acknowledges that a majority
of the unit employees executed designations on behalf of
Local 522, but asserts that, as the employees requisite to
the latter's majority had also validly designated Local 326.
under the Board's "dual authorization" doctrine. the cards
may not be deemed valid designations adequate to form a
predicate for lawful recognition. See. e.g.. Crest Containers
Corporation, 223 NLRB 739 (1976).
By way of defense, Respondents argue that the above
precedent is inapposite, urging that the challenged bargain-
ing relationship was established only after unit employees
repudiated their prior interest in representation by l.ocal
326. Alex Edelman, Zev Parness, et. ai., a Copartnership
d/b/a Wavecrest Home for Adults, 217 NLRB 227 (1975).
More specifically, the facts show that Respondent Em-
ployer commenced operations at the facility in question on
April 15, 1977.' By letter dated April 20, Local 522 notified
Respondent Employer that it was in the process of organiz-
ing the employees involved here. However, as shall be seen,
no representative of Local 522 actually appeared in the
Camden area for such purposes until May 13. In the mean-
time an employee, or former employee, Miller Garrett of
Atlas, contacted Local 326.2 Garrett, shortly thereafter. ac-
cording to credible evidence, by May 4. obtained signed
authorization cards from at least 7 of the 10-11 unit em-
ployees.3 On that date, Local 326 forwarded a letter to the
president of Atlas Lumber. Bernie Liedman. which stated
as follows:
Dear Sir:
This is to advise you that a majority of your drivers
and Yard employees have signed authorization cards
indicating their desire to have this Local Union repre-
sent them.
We have been in contact with your employees and are
now actively organizing them. We request your co-
operation and ask that you abide by their wishes in
accordance with the applicable law.
Please consider this letter a request for recognition on
their behalf in accordance with the applicable law.
Very truly yours
/'s/Frank Sheeran
Frank Sheeran
President
t Unless otherwise indicated all dates herein refer to 1977.
2 The record is not entirely clear as to whether (iarreil hald severed his
employment relationship prior to this contact.
Credible evidence establishes that Loical 326 had beenl designated
through signed authorization cards on or before Mav 3. 1977. bh emplosees
Perry Leon Price, Bertram Furrowh. John Bernard. Harold 1: [)avis. James
Rhodes. James J. Pough, and Joseph Pough. I he ailhdlt of the carde execui-
led by Willard t.ee. dated Mat 6. 1977. and Janmes McDonald, lda.tcd M;ais 5.
1977, is also supported hb credited testinin!s
Atlas L umber admittedly received said letter on May 9, but
made no effort to respond.
Thereafter on May 13, James Rizzo, a business represen-
tative of Local 522, made the very first appearance on be-
half of that Union at the Employer's premises. He met with
lIiedman requesting execution of a memorandum agree-
ment whereby the Compan? would be bound to the unex-
pired term of the multiemployer agreement referred to
abhove. I.iedman declined, indicating that he would not do
so without proof that Local 522 represented a majority of
his employees. At this juncture, there apparently had
been no communication between Local 522 and any of the
Atlas employees.
On May 16. Rizzo returned to Camden and successfully
secured signed Local 522 authorization cards from 10 em-
ployees, of whom. 9 had previously designated Local 326.
That evening. Rizzo again met with l.iedman and, after a
cross-check of the Local 522 cards against employee signa-
tures on W-2 forms, I iedman signed the memorandum of
agreement.
After learning that Local 522 had obtained authorization
cards from the employees. Local 326 filed a representation
petition on Mav 23. 1977. This was followed by the unfair
labor practice charge giving rise to this proceeding, which
was filed on June 10. 1977.
The facts present a close question under Board prece-
dent designed to accommodate the often conflicting statu-
tors policy of encouraging the stability of established bar-
gaining relationships. on the one hand, while at the same
time seeking to preserve employee choice, on the other.
Through the Mlidwest Piping doctrine. real questions of rep-
resentation as between competing labor organizations are
the subject of unfair labor practice remedies which assure
resolution of such claims through the Board's election pro-
cedures, rather than through an employer's expression of
preference. In short. under that doctrine, the employer is
held to a duty of strict neutrality, and violates Section
8(a)l) and (2) of the Act by recognizing one of several
competing unions. provided that the offended labor orga-
nization held a genuine representation claim at the time
recognition was conferred. In the instant case, at the time
of its demand for recognition. Local 326 possessed authori-
zation cards validly executed by 7 in a unit consisting of no
more than II employees. The demand of May 4 by Local
326. coupled with its designation by a majority, despite
designations secured subsequently from a majority by Lo-
cal 522. under controlling precedent was sufficient to give
rise to a claim for representation which, absent unusual
circumstances. precluded the Employer from lawfully con-
ferring recognition upon the latter. See, e.g., Epsilon Fishing
Co.. Inc. d h a M: I Denise Marie, 198 NLRB 918. 919
(1972). enfd. 483 F.2d 952 (C.A. 9. 1973).
Furthermore. the General Counsel's claim that Local
522 did not represent an uncoerced majority at the time
recognition was conferred, is supported by the Board's
general reluctance to count any card signed by an employ-
ee who had also designated a rival. See, e.g., Crest Contain-
ers Corporation, supra.
Notwithstanding the foregoing. the defense raised by the
Respondent Employer and Respondent Local 522 is a sub-
stantial one under Board precedent. If. as they claim, the
825
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees designated Local 522 on a considered basis,
with the intention of repudiating any prior interest in L.ocal
326, and said expression is substantiated by clear unmis-
takable proof, then the Board's Midwest Piping doctrine, as
well as its policy against recognition on the basis of dual
authorization cards, must yield to the equally salutary poli-
cy of enhancing the stability of bargaining relationships by
nonintervention with the clearly manifested choice of em-
ployees.
Wavecrest Home for Adults, supra, was just such a case.
There, the Board affirmed dismissal of a complaint con-
taining allegations similar to those presented here, where,
in finding that the employer lawfully conferred recognition
upon one of two unions, the Administrative Law Judge
acted upon evidence that the prime employee organizer
who had originally solicited on behalf of the offended
union reversed gears after that union had failed over a
significant period of time to take steps to secure represen-
tation for the employees, and contacted and obtained de-
signations from a majority of his coworkers on behalf of
the union ultimately recognized. Thus, the offended union
in that case delayed more than a month before even mak-
ing a request for recognition, and finally did so by telegram
5 days after the employer had verified the second union's
majority status and had executed an agreement conferring
recognition upon that union. In these circumstances, the
Board was convinced that the employees had effectively
repudiated the rival union, and accordingly declined to in-
voke Board remedies to undermine the relationship emerg-
ing from their clear choice.
Credible evidence exists on this record to the effect that
employees acted to designate Local 522 on May 16 because
they had not heard from Local 326.4 On balance, however.
this fact fails to bring the instant controversy with the am-
bit of the Wavecrest case. For here, Local 326 had acted in
due course to manifest to the Employer its representative
interest and desire for recognition, but said request, though
received, was ignored. And the timespan of 12 days be-
tween the submission of Local 326's request for recognition
and the date recognition was conferred on Local 522, hard-
ly enhances any conclusion holding the employees to a
binding choice. Furthermore, unlike Wavecrest, supra, the
employees did not solicit Local 522, but signed up in the
course of a single confrontation with representatives of
that Union. Finally, though the Local 522 multiemployer
contract to which Atlas became bound was in existence,
the employees were induced to designate that Union with-
out opportunity to examine its terms.5
There is every suggestion in this record that employees
were dissatisfied with conditions of work, and as of May
16, were interested in some form of union representation
4See the testimony of employees Perr, Price and James Rhodes Note
also the testimony of Local 326 president. Sheeran, as to reports he had
received as to why employees signed cards on behalf of L ocal 522.
The testimony as to what transpired on May 16 is to the effect that
Rizzo, on behalf of Local 522. on meeting with the employees, simply dis-
cussed the benefits he would seek to obtain for the employees. The record
does not indicate to what extent benefits were defined It is difficult to
imagine that this discussion was exhaustive, when considered in the light of
Rizzo's testimony that it was not until June I Ihat he had occasion lo go to
the premises of Atlas to explain to employees the terms of that contract
which would bring about an improvement. It is my opinion
that their decision to designate Local 522 was not made
against a background reflecting that they held a sufficient
command of the facts to repudiate knowingly their ex-
pressed interest in Local 326.
Accordingly, Respondents have failed to meet their bur-
den of proof, the Wavecrest decision, supra, is distin-
guished, and hence I find that Respondent Employer vio-
lated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing
Local 522 in the face of a genuine claim for representation
by Local 326, and at a time when Local 522 did not hold
designations constituting valid evidence that it represented
a majority of unit employees. I further find that Respon-
dent Union violated Section 8(a)(1)(A) by accepting recog-
nition and executing a collective-bargaining agreement un-
der these conditions.
CONCI.L SIONS 01 LAW
1. The Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent Local 522 and Local 326 are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By recognizing Local 522 as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, af-
ter Local 326 presented a genuine claim for representation
of those very employees, and at a time when Local 522 did
not represent a majority of said employees, and by thereaf-
ter executing and maintaining a collective-bargaining con-
tract with Local 522, Respondent has and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2)
and (I) of the Act.
4. By entering into and maintaining a collective-bar-
gaining agreement at a time when Respondent Local 522
did not represent a majority of the employees in an appro-
priate unit, and while a genuine claim of representation
had been raised by Local 326, Respondent Local 522 vio-
lated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, Respondent
Employer will be ordered to cease recognizing or dealing
with Respondent Local 522 as the bargaining representa-
tive of its employees in the appropriate unit, and Respon-
dent Local 522 will be ordered to cease from acting as the
exclusive representative of such employees, unless and un-
til certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of
employees in the appropriate unit. Both Respondents will
be ordered to cease and desist from giving any force or
effect to the collective-bargaining agreement to which they
became bound on May 16, 1977, or any extension, renewal,
or modification thereof; provided, however, that nothing
herein shall be construed as requiring variance in any
wage, hour, seniority, or other term or condition of em-
ployment which the Employer has established in the per-
formance of this agreement, or to prejudice the assertion
by employees of any rights they may have acquired there-
under.
826
ATLAS L.UMBER COMPANY
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 6
A. The Respondent Employer, Atlas Lumber Company,
Camden, New Jersey, its officers, agents. successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing or dealing with Respondent local 522
as the bargaining representative of its employees in the ap-
propriate unit unless and until Respondent Local 522 shall
have been certified by the Board as the exclusive represen-
tative of such employees.
(b) Assisting Respondent-Local 522 in any other man-
ner to become the collective-bargaining representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining. or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition of Respondent
Local 522 as the bargaining representative of its employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and revoke its collective-
bargaining agreement with said Utnion.
(b) Post at its Camden, New Jersey. plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A." Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 4, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of
Respondent Employer, be posted by Respondent Em-
ployer immediately upon receipt thereof, and he main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places. including all places where notices to emploxees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken bh
Respondent Employer to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4. in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Employer has taken to comply herewith.
B. The Respondent Union, General Teamsters Local
Union 522 International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Ja-
maica, New York, its officers, agents. and representatives.
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Respondent Employer's employees in the appropriate unit
at Camden. New Jersey. for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining, unless and until it shall have been certified by the
Board as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) Giving any force or effect to its collective-bargaining
agreement with Respondent entered on Max 16. 1977. or to
any amendment, supplement, or addition thereto.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meetings halls in the
State of New Jersey. copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B." s Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 4, shall, after being
duly signed by an appropriate representative, be posted by
Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof. and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent l.ocal 522 to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced. or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 10
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
Union has taken to comply herewith.
'In tile c let nt , e. ieptlons are filed i prrded h ided Sec 102 46 if the
RasIeC aid ReeUl.,l1n1i of the Narional i.Labor Relations Board. the findings.
.nlC.ltillrSi rlrd recCnmended Order herein shall. as prtided in Seo
102 46 of the Ruile and Regularlm., he adopted lh the Board and hecirme
I, , fridrel, i. .nclu.in,. and Order. and all ohjections thereto shall he
dieeflmed .Ilici for .ll purposec
In lic ,cnil that thi., ()irdcr , crlfoirced hb a judgment of the I nrted
Statec ( ,urt 1 , ppe.al. [lie .. rdx In the notice reading "Po,rted h Order
Of the Ntl,,ri.ll I lhr Rel.tiin, Board" shall read "Posted Pursuanl , to
Judgment of the U nled States (Court if Appeals Fnfiorcing an Order of the
`rrittwt[ I ahr R:irtri Bard"
APPEND)IX B
Notll I To MrMBERS
P(osit ) so ORDI R ()1 1i1
NA io(),N S LABRR Ri I Ali (Ns BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties were represented and
afforded the opportunity to present exidence in support of
their respective positions. it has been found that we have
violated the National Labor Relations Act in certain re-
spects and we have been ordered to post this notice and to
carry out its terms.
The National Labor Relations Act, givesyou, as employ-
ees, certain rights including the right:
To engage in self-organization
To form. join. or help a union
To bargain collectively through a representative
of your own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
Accordingly, we give you these assurances.
W'F \Aii i No act as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of Atlas Lumber Company.
Camden. New Jersey, unless and until we have been
827
DEC(ISIONS OF NATIONAL ILABOR REI.AIOI()NS BOARI)
certified by the Board as the authorized representative
of such eniployees.
Wi Wl ii NO1 give any force or effect to our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Atlas Lumber Compa-
ny, Camden, New Jersey, entered on May 16, 1977, or
to any amendment, supplement. or addition thereto.
WI will NOI in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
LOXAI. UNION 522. INTiRNArlIONt BRO()ItRHOOD OF
T1 1AMSI I RS ('IAlI I [ I RS WAR HOISt:N Ml N AND
h1'] I P[ RS ()I A/\MiRIV A
828