Big E Leasing And Service Corp. And Rje Leasing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1329 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

BIG E LEASING CORP 1329
Big E Leasing and Service Corp . and RJE Leasing,
Pittsburgh Division , Corp . and General Ware-
housemen and Employees Local 636 a/w Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America
General Teamsters , Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
249 . a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America and General Warehousemen and
Employees Local 636 a/w International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America . Cases 6-CA-
17261-4: and 6-CB-6397
31 July 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 29 April 1985 Administrative Law' Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision.
Respondent Teamsters Local 249 filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief. -
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Big E Leas-
ing and Service Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the
Respondent, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local 249 a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Order..
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge.
These cases were tried at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11-
12 February 1985. On 1-1 April 19841 Teamsters Local
636 filed the charge (amended 15 June) against Big E
Leasing and Service Corp. (the Company), the charge
against Teamsters Local 249, and also a charge against
RJE Leasing, Pittsburgh Division, Corp. (RJE) in a case
' All dates are m•1984 unless otherwise indicated
that was settled before trial. The complaints and consoli-
dated order were issued 15 June
The Company was performing truck driving and de-
livery work for Gimbels at two warehouses under a
truckdriver agreement with Teamsters Local 249. After
negotiating with Local 249 a cutrate wage for a new
classification of warehousemen, the Company contracted
to perform warehouse work at the two warehouses. It
replaced all except six of the Gimbel warehousemen rep-
resented by Local 636, hired new employees solely
through the Local 249 hiring hall, and applied the Local
249 truckdriver agreement (covering 22 drivers and help-
ers) to the larger warehouse bargaining unit (containing
41 skilled and unskilled employees).
The primary issues are (a) whether the Respondent
Company rendered unlawful assistance to Local 249 and
discriminated against Local 636 members and others not
referred by Local 249 and (b) whether the Respondent
Local 249 coerced employees and caused the Company
to discriminate in the hiring of employees, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act
On the entire record, including 'my observation of the
demeanor ' of the witnesses, and ' after considering the
General Counsel's and Local 249's briefs and the Compa-
ny's contentions at the trial, I make. the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The. Company (which admittedly is a single employer
with RJE) provides nonretail delivery, warehouse, and
messenger services at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it
annually provides services valued over $50,000 to
Gimbel Brothers, Inc., which operates retail stores in
various States. The Company and Local 249 admit that
the . Company is an employer engaged in -commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act and that Locals 249 and 636 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act _
II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Negotiation of Cutrate Warehousemen Wage
In December 1983 the Company contracted to per-
form Gimbel's truckdriving and delivery work at Gim-
bel's 21st and 24th Streets warehouses in Pittsburgh after
reaching an agreement with Teamsters Local 249, which
had represented Gimbel's regular drivers, helpers, and
loaders The Company adopted Local 249's 1982-1985
collective-bargaining agreement with Gimbels (G.C.
Exh. 3) and hired all 22 or 23 of the full-time and regular
part-time drivers, helpers, and loaders in the truckdriver
bargaining unit at these two warehouses. (Tr. 37, 51,
G C. Exh. 3.)
In February, during negotiations of a new truckdriver
agreement, the Company proposed a "package" deal, of-
fering to give a $1 45 wage increase over a 3-year period
if Local 249 would agree to a warehousemen classifica-
tion, to be paid the "very ' low wage rate" of $4.75 an
hour (Tr. 64, 72, 74). This $4.75 rate (to be increased
275 NLRB No. 182
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$1.05 to $5 80 by February 1987) was far below other
rates of $9.39 (to $10.84) for regular helpers, $9 74 (to
$11.19) for night loaders, and, $8.10 (to $9.55) for new
platform helpers/loaders hired after 14 February 1982
(G.C Exh. 4, p. 33).
The Company did not at that time have any warehou-
semen who would be paid that substandard rate (Tr 70).
Although the Company refused to inform Local 249
where the warehouse work would be, claiming this was
privileged information, Local 249 suspected it would be
additional work from Gimbels (Tr. 73-74), whose ware-
housemen had been represented by Teamsters Local 636
for about 40 years (Tr. 81). Gimbels and Local 636 had
been unable to reach an agreement to replace the one
that expired 15 February 1983. Under that expired 1980-
1983 agreement, the warehouseman rate (group 3) had
been $7 20 an hour since 15 February 1982 (G C. Exh. 8,
pp. 29, 31) The warehouse employees were working
under that expired agreement during Gimbel's continuing
negotiations with Local 636 (Tr. 81).
When proposing the package deal (which also includ-
ed a $3.40 messenger rate and other new classifications
not involved in this proceeding), the' Company informed
Local 249-that this was its final offer. It stated that the
proposed warehouse rate was part of the package and
that if the Local 249 membership did ,not accept it, the
Company "would not bid, on the work and that would
be the end of that." (Tr. 64.)'
The proposal included a "side letter-agreement" that
revealed the Company's intention of replacing experience
employees (members 'of Local 636) 'performing ware-
house work. The side letter provided'that "in hiring the
initial complement" of employees," the "Company would
first assign the "extras" on its payroll, and then if any of
the "former employees" terminated Gimbel employees)
are, referred -by Local 249, they "will be' considered' for
employment"-at the $4.75 rate, except'(six) former em-
ployees "in a technically skilled specialty,". who would
be paid at the prevailing rate. (G.C. Exh. 4.)
There were then 22 employees in the -truckdriver bar-
gaining unit, all working full.time as drivers and helpers
(G.C. Exh. 4, p. 46). The proposed 1984-1988 agreement
would define the unit-as all "full-time and regular part-
time drivers, helpers, and,warehousemen" and, if applied
to about 41 employees in the warehouse unit, would
expand the unit from 22 to about 63. "It continued the
hiring hall provisions (stating in art. I, sec. 2 that "the
Union -will ,have first opportunity to refer qualified per-
sonnel". to fill needs for, additional personnel to perform
driving, helping, or warehousing functions', through, the
"hiring hall procedure or'otherwise") and `the union-se-
curity provision's (stating in art II, sec._ -1 that new em-
ployees shall become meinbers'on`the 31st day of 'em-
ployment).
Local 249 accepted the proposal and on 29 February
signed the side letter 'and the 1984-1988'agreement.'
B. Extension of Local 249 Agreement to 'Warehouse
Unit
On 29 February; after the Company and Teamsters
Local 249 signed the'truckdriver agreement containing
the new classification and low wage rate for warehouse-
men, Gimbels notified Teamsters Local 636 that it had
decided to contract out Local 636's warehouse work (Tr
82). On 12 March Gimbels notified the Company,(effec-
tive on 24 hours' notice) that it would be assigning the
Company the warehousemen functions at the 21st Street
furniture warehouse and the first floor of the 24th Street
warehouse (G.C. Exh 5) -
The Company immediately extended the Local 249
truckdriver and warehouse agreement to the warehouse
unit at the two warehouses, requesting Local 249 under
the hiring hall provisions of that agreement to begin re-
ferring applicants to the company offices in the Eastland
Shopping Center (Tr. 68). Local 249 referred six appli-
cants 13 March (G.C. Exh. 2, LL. 22, 27, 29, 37-39), one
on 14 March (L. 26), and one on 16 March (L. 25).
On March 16 Gimbels terminated all the Local 636
members. The next day, Saturday, 'the Company began
offering full-time employment to their replacements As
it and Local 249 had agreed-in their February 29 side
letter, the Company first offered the warehouse work to
23 "extras." These extra employees (who were not mem-
bers of the Local 249 bargaining unit of "full-time and
regular part-time" employees) had worked on "`a casual
or extra" basis, in most cases only 1 or 2 days, as loader
helpers, messengers, or messenger drivers for-the Com-
pany or as receivers for RJE (Tr. 28, G.C. Exh. 2, LL.
1-21, 23-24) That same Saturday the Company offered
warehouse employment to the eight Local 249 referrals
whom it had interviewed. All 31 of these extras and new
employees began working full time the following week.
On Monday 19 March the Company completed inter-
viewing Local 249 referrals for its initial complement of
warehouse employees It hired 10 of them, including the
six skilled furniture • refinishers and repairmen (former
Gimbel employees, members of Local 636) mentioned in
the 29 February side letter (Tr. 29, 45, G.C Exh. 2, LL.
28, 30-36, 40-41). '
Between 12 and 19 March, 29 additional applications
were filed by persons who were not referred by Local
249. Although 16 of these applications showed experi-
ence iii furniture and general warehouse work, none of
the 29 applicants was hired for the warehouse work. (Tr.
32.) On the other hand, all the applicants referred by
Local 249 during this period were hired, except that one
applicant referred on March 19 was rejected because of
physical disability'(Tr. 31).
On "20' and 21 March; after -most of the' Local 636
members had been replaced, a large number of them
went to the company office, and filed applications. Gen-
eral Manager Richard Funk met with some of them 21
March, told them the Company's hiring was done
through Local 249 referrals, and informed them that
under the hiring hall arrangement they had to go to the
union hall about' 3 a.m., sign up on the extra list, then
wait for jobs-at Gimbels and elsewhere-to be an-
nounced, and they "might be assigned to any number, of
different kinds of jobs" (Tr. "46-47): He told them that- he
would send copies of their applications to that local (Tr.
48). -
The Company admittedly recognized Local 249 and
applied the Local 249-agreement "for all purposes" to
BIG E LEASING CORP
the 41 employees-in the warehouse unit (consisting of 23
'former "extras," 12 new employees referred by Local
249, and the 6 skilled members of Local 636) (Tr 46).
Local 249 did,not show the Company-any union authori-
zation cards or other proof that it represented any of
these warehouse employees (Tr. 50).
On 3 May most of the warehouse employees signed
Local 249 membership application cards in the presence
of General Manager Funk and other company officials
(Tr 79, G.C. Exh. 7) Acting to enforce the union secu-
rity provisions in its agreement, Local 249 made assess-
ments for initiation fees and the May dues against a total
of 26 warehouse employees who had signed the cards,
including 6 computer operators (Tr. 83, G.C. Exh. 7). It
collected seven of the assessments before suspending the
collection.
C. Concluding Findings
Teamsters Local 636 had represented Gimbel's ware-
house employees about 40 years. On 29 February the
Company and Teamsters Local 249 signed a prehire
agreement for warehousemen, extending their agreement
covering 22 drivers and helpers at two Gimbel ware-
houses to a new classification of warehousemen. On 12
March, when Gimbels notified the Company (effective
on 24 hours' notice) that it was contracting out ware-
house work at the two warehouses to the Company, the
Company immediately recognized Local 249 as the rep-
resentative of the warehouse unit by applying the hiring
hall procedure in the prehire agreement and requesting
referrals from Local 249. On 17 March, the day after
Gimbels terminated all the Local 636 members working
as warehousemen, the Company began replacing all
these experienced employees except six skilled furniture
refinishers and repairmen. As agreed with Local 249 in
the prehire agreement, the Company first assigned its
nonunit "extras." It then hired new employees ( as well as
the six terminated skilled employees) exclusively through
the Local 249 hiring hall, refusing to hire any of the non-
referred applicants (including terminated Local 636
members) Although Local 249 failed to show the Com-
pany any union authorization cards or other proof that it
represented any of these 41 employees in the warehouse
unit (consisting of 23 former "extras," 12 new employees
referred by Local 249, and the 6 skilled Local 636 mem-
bers), the Company admittedly applied the Local 249
agreement to this warehouse unit "for all purposes."
It is clear that the Company's recognition of Loca1249
under the prehire agreement constituted an unlawful.pre-
mature recognition unless the warehouse bargaining unit
was a proper, accretion to the existing truckdriver bar-
gaining unit . Contrary to the contentions of the Compa-
ny and Local 249, I agree with the General Counsel that
there was not a lawful accretion. As held in Safeway
Stores, 256 NLRB- 918 (1981), for the Board to find a
valid accretion, the additional employees must not only
share an overwhelming community of interest with the
preexisting unit but must "have little or no separate
group identity and thus cannot be considered to be a sep-
arate appropriate unit ." Moreover, as held in a case cited
by Local 249, Universal Security Instruments v. NLRB,
649 F.2d 247, 255 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 454 U.S.
1331
965 (1981), "The accretion doctrine is applied more
strictly, when the new group of employees is larger than
the original unit."
Here the warehouse employees had been represented
by Teamsters Local 636 many years in a bargaining unit
separate from the truckdriver bargaining unit. They
could obviously be a separate appropriate unit. And
there were 41 employees in the warehouse bargaining
unit , nearly twice the number of 22 employees in the
truckdriver unit. No proof of majority was offered. ,
As alleged in the complaint, I find that the Company
granted recognition to Local 249 as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the warehouse bargaining unit under the ille-
gal prehire agreement ; that it applied the agreement,
containing union-security and hiring hall provisions,
when Local 249 did not represent an uncoerced majori-
ty; and that it hired as warehousemen only applicants re-
ferred by Local 249, encouraging employees to join and
support the Local in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2)
of the Act. I also find that the Company applied the
hiring hall provisions of the illegal prehire agreement
and discriminated in hiring against Local 636 members
and others not referred by Local 249 by hiring only ap-
plicants referred by Local 249, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
As further alleged in the complaint, I find that Local
249 obtained recognition from the Company as the ex-
clusive representative of the warehouse bargaining unit
under the illegal' prehire -agreement when it did not rep-
resent an uncoerced majority, in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I also find that Local 249, at the
Company's request, referred individuals under the hiring
hall provisions of,the illegal prehire agreement , causing
the Company to refuse to employ employees without
Local 249 referrals, in violation of. Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By recognizing Teamsters Local 249 as the exclu-
sive representative of the warehouse unit and applying
its illegal prehire agreement with Local 249 to the ware-
house unit when the Local did not represent an un-
coerced majority, and by hiring as warehousemen only
applicants referred by Local 249, the Company unlawful-
ly assisted Local 249, engaging 'in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the -meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 By applying the hiring hall provisions of the illegal
prehire agreement and'by discriminating in hiring against
Teamsters Local 636 members and others not referred by
Local 249, the. Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
3. By obtaining premature recognition from the Com-
pany under the illegal prehire agreement, Local 249 vio-
lated Section'8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By referring individuals under the hiring hall provi-
sions of the illegal prehire agreement at the Company's
request , causing the Company to refuse to employ em-
ployees without Local 249 referrals, Local 249 violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Company and Re-
spondent Teamsters Local 249 have engaged in certain'
unfair labor piactices, I find it necessary to order them
to cease and desist and to take certain' affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Although both Respondents deny the commission of
=any unfair labor practices,' both agreed at the trial that
the terms of paragraph A,1 and 2(a)-(c) of the following
Order against the Respondent- Company would effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act if the alleged violations were
found (Tr. 85, 88). Interest on the backpay and refunds
shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB
651 (1977). -
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I-issue the following recommend-
ed2 - - '
ORDER •
A. The Respondent. Company, Big E Leasing and
Service Cor`p., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors,'and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Assisting General Teamsters, Chauffeurs' and Help-
ers Local 249 a/w International Brotherhood 'of-Team-
sters, Chauffeurs; Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, by recognizing' it'as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the furniture warehouse and material han-
dling employees at Gimbel's 2-1st Street and 24th Street
warehouse (the Warehouse Unit) when-it does-not repre-'
sent an uncoei'ced majority. - `
(b) Applying its-collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 249 to the' Warehouse Unit' when the Local does
not represent an uncoerced ' majority; except -that' the
wages and 'other conditions ;of employment `established
under the agreement need not be abandoned." • '
(c) Encouraging membership in Local •249 by refusing
to hire Warehouse Unit `employees unless they are re-
ferred by that' Local when it' is not the lawfully recog-
nized representative of that, Unit'
(d) Recognizing or bargaining with Local 249 as the
representative of theWarehouse Unit employees unless it
becomes the certified bargaining- representative. , - - '
(e) 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. ,t , . .
(a) Offer, if not previously offered, Maurice A Blake,
Matthew F. Foley,, and. Robert Lyda "full-time Ware-
house Unit jobs,,,and William ,Harshbargar,i Earl Ross,
Edward Fuhrer, Mark, Bracarelli, and Frank Skorkoski
part-time Warehouse Unit ,jobs, discharging or. ;refusing
to recall from layoffif necessary, other employees to
make room for them ;
2 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 pur-
poses - _ `
(b) Offer, -m the following order, all full-time and part-
time Warehouse Unit jobs that become-available before
August 15, 1986, to a pool of 33 qualified persons who
applied before March 28, 1984, until each of them has
been hired for, or has rejected; a full-time job
1. Lesley Cardell 17 Raymond Miller
2. John Zaya 18 Paul Matvia
-- 3. Leonard Fliegel 19 William Petrie
4. Jack Feeney - 20, Matthew Moran
5. Threatha Allen • •21 Joseph Ross
6. Craig Lawson - • 22. Michael Tedeschi
7. Alfred Daugininkas 23 Mark Bracarelli
8. Bill Forbes 24. Thomas Huck
9, Ray Tomko • 25. Kenneth Maddox
10. Edward Fuhrer 26. Raymond McMillen Jr.
11. James Nocine 27. Joe Cottrell
12. Harry Miller 28. Mike Chojnacki
13. Chris Moronelli 29. Charles Malia
14. Earl Ross - 30. Keith Mahowski
15. Bill Harshbarger 31. James Mears
16: Rich Yanik 32. Frank Skorkoski
33 Eugene Ennis
(c) Jointly and severally with Local 249 compensate
the following - applicants who were discriminatorily
denied consideration for employment-by giving each of
them an equal 'share of the total backpay amount of
$15,845.10, plus interest: -
Threatha Allen - Robert J. Lyda -
Maurice A Blake Kenneth Maddox '
Mark Cracarelli - Charles A Malia'
Lesley F. Barden ' Paul Matvia
Mike Chojriacki• James' E. Mears
Joe Cottrill- ' Harry.J. Miller '
Alfred Daugininkas Chris Moronelli '
Eugene L. Ennis James W. Nocine
Leonard H. Fliegel William W. Petrie
Matthew F Foley,' Earl Ross
Bill Forbes - Joseph M- Ross '
Edward M. Fuhrer Frank Skorkoski
Bill Harshbarger • - Ray Tomko •
Craig Lawson,, _• , Rich Yakik.
John•Zaya
-(d) Post at its operation's` in the Gimbel's 21st and 24th
Street warehouses in Pittsburgh; Pennsylvania,, copies of
the attached notice marked ' 'Appendix' A."3 ' Copies of
the notice, on forms provided; by the Regional Director
for Region 6, after being-signed',by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days-in conspicuous places -including all places
where notices'-to employees are customarily posted Rea-
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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board •' -
BIG E LEASING` CORP
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material. .
(e) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked. "Ap-
pendix A" to each individual named , in this Order.
Copies of the notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Re-
spondent Company's authorized representative , shall be
mailed by the Respondent Company immediately upon
receipt.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent Company has taken to comply.,
B. The Respondent Union , General Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs and Helpers Local 249 a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , its offi-
cers, agents , and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Acting as the representative of the furniture ware-
house and material handling employees at Gimbel's 21st
Street and 24th Street warehouses (the Warehouse Unit)
until certified by the Board as their exclusive collective-
bargaining representative. -
(b) Giving effect to any terms of the 29 February 1984
collective-bargaining agreement , or any amendment or
renewal, between it and the Respondent Company as ap-
plied to the Warehouse Unit.
(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 policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Compa-
ny compensate the following applicants who were discri-
minatorily denied consideration for employment by
giving each of them an equal share of the total backpay
amount of $15,845. 10, plus interest:
Threatha Allen Robert J. Lyda
Maurice A Blake Kenneth Maddox -
Mark Bracarelli Charles A. Malia
Lesley F. Cardell Paul Matvia
Mike Chojnacki James E. Mears
Joe Cottrill Harry J. Miller
Alfred Daugininkas Chris Moronelli
Eugene L. Ennis James W. Nocine
Leonard H. Fliegel William W. Petrie
Matthew F Foley Earl Ross
Bill Forbes Joseph M. Ross
Edward M. Fuhrer Frank Skorkoski
Bill Harshbarger Ray Tomko
Craig Lawson Rich Yanik -
John Zaya '
(b) Refund , with interest , any money collected as initi- 1 -
ation fees or dues from employees in the Warehouse'
Unit.
(c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."4 Copies of
4 See fn 3, above
1333
the notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region - 6, after being signed by • •th6 Respondent
Union 's authorized representative , shall be posted by the
Respondent Union immediately upon receipt and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in-
cluding all places where notices to members are, custom-
arily posted . Reasonable steps 'shall be taken' by , the Re-
spondent Union to ensure ' that the notices are not al-
tered , defaced , or covered by any , other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing . within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply. -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint - is dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.
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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with General
Teamsters , Chauffeurs and Helpers Local' 249 as the rep-
resentative of our warehouse unit employees at Gimbel's
21st and 24th Street warehouse unless that Local is certi-
fied by the Board as their exclusive collective -bargaining
representative
WE WILL NOT apply our Local 249 agreement to these
warehouse employees when that Local does not repre-
sent an uncoerced majority.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 249 by
refusing to hire warehouse unit employees unless - re-
ferred by that Local when it is not the lawful representa-
tive.
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 offer, if not previously offered, full-time and
part-time warehouse unit jobs that become available
before 15 August 1986 to this pool of 33 qualified per-
sons who applied before 28 March 1984 , unless each of
them has been hired for, or has rejected , a full-time job:
1. Lesley Ca'rdell
2. John Zaya
3. Leonard Fliegel
4 Jack Feeney
5. Threatha Allen
6. Craig Lawson
7. Alfred Daugininkas
8. Bill Forbes
9. Ray Tomko
10. Edward Fuhrer
11. James Nocine
12. Harry Miller
13. Chris Moronelli
14 Earl Ross
17. Raymond Miller
18. Paul Matvia
19. William Petrie
.20. Matthew Moran
21. Joseph Ross
22. Michael•Tedeschi
23. Mark Bracarelli
24. Thomas Huck
25. Kenneth Maddox
26. Raymond McMillen Jr.
27. Joe Cottrill
28. Mike Chojnacki
29. Charles Malia
30. Keith Mahowski
1334 _ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,15: Bill Harshbarger 31. James Mears Joe Cottrill Harry J. Miller
16. Rich Yanik 32. Frank Skorkoski Alfred Daugininkas Chris Moronelli
33. Eugene, Ennis '- Eugene L Ennis James W. Nocine
Leonard H. Fliegel William W. Petrie
'Matthew ,F Foley Earl RossWE WILL jointly and severally with Local 249 pay .
each of the following applicants an equal share in the Bill Forbes Joseph M Ross
total backpay of $15,845 . 10, plus interest: -Edward M. Fuhrer Frank Skorkoski
Bill H hars barger Ray Tomko
Threatha Allen - Robert J. Lyda Craig Lawson Rich Yanik
Maurice A. Blake Kenneth Maddox John Zaya
Mark Cracarelli • ' Charles A. Malia
Lesley F . Bardell Paul Matvia
Mike Chojnacki James E . Mears' BIG E LEASING AND SERVICE CORP.