Bill O'Grady Carpet Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 587 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

BILL O'GRADY CARPET SERVICE, INC
Bill O'Grady Carpet Service, Inc. and Carpet, Lino-
leum, Soft Tile and Resilient Floor Covering Lay-
ers, Local Union No. 419 , AFL-CIO. Case 27-
CA-2790
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On June 3, 1970, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions, and the General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
each with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela-
' In adopting the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent violated
Sec 8 (a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act, we need not , and do not , rely on
so much of the Trial Examiner 's Decision as finds that Respondent
had a duty , which it failed to perform , to go to the union hall to
sign the 1969 contract The credited testimony , along with Respondent's
admissions in its answer , amply support the Trial Examiner 's findings
that Respondent untimely attempted to withdraw from the multiemployer
bargaining group, of which it was a part , after negotiations in the multiem-
ployer unit had resulted in an agreement , and that it thereafter withdrew
recognition from the Union , disclaimed any obligation to execute a written
copy of the negotiated agreement , and refused to acknowledge any obliga-
tion to be bound by its terms The foregoing findings are sufficient,
without more , to establish Respondent 's violation of 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act Respondent 's failure to go to the union hall to affix its
signature to the 1969 agreement , as it had done with respect to the
two prior contracts , does not , in our opinion , support a finding of an
independent 8(a)(5) violation , but is relevant only in explaining why
the Union did not formally solicit Respondent's signature to the 1969
contract before demanding compliance with that contract 's provisions
185 NLRB No. 41
587
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein,
and hereby orders that the Respondent, Bill O'Grady
Carpet Service, Inc., Denver, Colorado, its officers,
agents successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified:
1. Substitute the following paragraph for paragraph
2(a) of the Recommended Order:
Formally acknowledge the obligation to abide
by the terms of the collective bargaining agree-
ment described in paragraph 1(a) of this Order
by signing a copy of that agreement immediately
upon its presentation by the Union.
2. Substitute the following for the first full para-
graph of the Appendix:
WE WILL sign a copy of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement effective August 1, 1969, between
the Employer Bargaining Group of the floor
covering industry and the Carpet, Linoleum, Soft
Tile and Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local
Union No. 419, AFL-CIO, immediately upon
the Union's presentation of a copy of that agree-
ment to us.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on September 2, 1969,1 by Carpet, Lineoleum, Soft
Tile and Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union
No 419, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called the Union), against
Bill O'Grady Carpet Service, Inc. (hereinafter called the
Respondent), a complaint and notice of hearing was issued
on October 28 by the Regional Director for Regioi. 27 The
complaint alleged, inter alla, that the Respondent was a
member of an Employer Bargaining Group, whose
employees were represented by the Union and which was
organized for the purpose of negotiating a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union The complaint
further alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
by refusing to recognize the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of its employees and by refusing
to sign and comply with the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement negotiated by the Employers' Group
The Respondent's answer, amended at the trial, denied that
the Union represented its employees or that it was a
member of an Employers' Group established to negotiate a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. By its
answer the Respondent denied any obligation to execute a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union and
specifically denied committing any unfair labor practices.
' Unless otherwise indicated , all dates herein refer to 1969
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This case was tried before me in Denver , Colorado,
on February 26 and 27, 1970. All parties were represented
by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard
and to introduce relevant evidence on the issues Briefs
were submitted by all counsel and they have been fully
considered by me in arriving at my decision in this case
Upon the entire record in this case , including my evalua-
tion of the testimony of the witnesses based upon my
observation of their demeanor and upon consideration of
the relevant evidence , I made the following.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent is a Colorado corporation engaged in
the business of installing floor carpeting The complaint
alleges and the answer admits that the Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business operations, annually
performs services valued in excess of $50,000 for other
business enterprises which themselves annually purchase
and receive goods valued in excess of $50,000, directly
from points located outside the State of Colorado. On
the basis of this evidence, I find and conclude that the
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Carpet, Lineoleum , Soft Tile and Resilient Floor Covering
Layers, Local Union No 419, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
iII. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
The Respondent is an independent carpet contractor who
installs carpeting for carpet retailers, builders, and interior
decorators. Bill O'Grady, Respondent's president, testified
that the Respondent Company operated as a corporate
entity for the past 10 years and that he had been engaged
in the carpet installation business as a single proprietor
for 8 years prior to incorporation. Until October 1969,
the Respondent belonged to a trade organization known
as the Associated Floor Covering Dealers (AFCD). Member-
ship of this organization consisted of the various floor
covering dealers and contractors in the greater Denver
area The AFCD was primarily a merchandising organiza-
tion set up to assist the dealers and contractors in their
operations and it did not deal with the labor relations
of the individual members. Some of the members of AFCD
were signatories to a collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union while others had no contract with the Union
and employed mechanics who were not union members.'
Historically when it was time to negotiate a new contract
with the Union, AFCD would contact its members, as
' O'Grady testified that he joined the AFCD purely for social purposes
in order to maintain contact with people in the trade
well as other floor covering dealers and contractors not
associated with it, for the purpose of convening a meeting
of the employers to discuss the industry position to be
taken during the negotiations. The employers would then
select a bargaining committee which would negotiate with
its counterpart from the Union After the bargaining com-
mittees had agreed upon the terms of the pending contract,
each would report back to its parent body who would
then express approval or disapproval of the final agreement.
The evidence discloses that the bargaining committee never
signed the contract on behalf of the employers, but rather,
that the Union would secure the signatures of individual
employers on the original contract which was later repro-
duced in booklet form. The evidence also discloses that
not all of the employers attending the meetings convened
by AFCD signed the agreement after it had been accepted
by the group Prior to the current negotiations involved
in this case, the Respondent had attended the meetings
of the Employer Group and had signed contracts with
the Union covering the periods 1963 to 1966 and 1966
to 1969 '
The Respondent's office was always maintained at the
home of its president, O'Grady All notices from the Union
and bills for payment to the pension and welfare funds
were always sent to O'Grady's home.
B. The Current Negotiations
Sixty days before the 1966-69 contract was due to expire,
the Union notified the individual employers that it intended
to negotiate a new agreement. In keeping with past practice,
AFCD called a meeting of its members and other employers
in the trade to discuss the position the employers would
take during the coming negotiations. The first meeting
was held at a local hotel on June 12 ° The Respondent
attended the initial meeting of the Employer Group The
president of AFCD, with the approval of the employers,
appointed a bargaining committee to negotiate with the
Union. Earl A Dixon, president of one of the employer
firms, was appointed chairman of this committee Dixon
accepted the position only on the condition that the partici-
pating employers give the bargaining committee full authori-
ty to act and negotiate on their behalf and bring back
the results to the group. Dixon's condition was accepted
by a majority of the employers in a voice vote.'
Approximately a week later the employer bargaining
committee met with the bargaining committee from the
The testimony indicates that the Respondent would go to the Union's
office and sign the contract after it had been agreed upon and reduced
to writing It is not clear whether the Respondent did this on its own
volition or whether the Union would make a request for the Respondent
to come to the office and sign the agreement
Earl A Dixon, the head of the employer negotiating committee,
testified that the first meeting occurred on June 3 However, dated
lists containing the names of the employers attending the meetings were
introduced into evidence, and the earliest date indicated on these lists
was June 12
O'Grady testified that he questioned whether granting this authority
to the bargaining committee would bind the employers to the agreement
negotiated by them He stated that he was told that each individual
employer would have to sign the contract in order to be bound, just
as it was with past negotiations
BILL O'GRADY CARPET SERVICE, INC. 589
Union. The Union presented its initial demands and the
employer committee rejected them summarily as being out
of line. Dixon asked the union commiteee if it had authority
to act and to negotiate an agreement. He suggested that
if it did not, it should go back to the Union and get
this authority Dixon told the union negotiators that his
committee had received such authority from the employers
The Union in turn insisted that the employer bargaining
committee submit to it the names of all of the employers
represented by this committee.
Following the first negotiating session with the Union,
the employers held another meeting which was attended
by the Respondent. The employers discussed the Union's
original proposals and, according to Dixon, discussed the
terms that they would be willing to accept in a collective-
bargaining agreement. Dixon testified that he also called
for reaffirmation of the bargaining committee's power to
act and negotiate on behalf of the Employer Group 6
Approximately a week after the second meeting of the
Employer Group, the union and employer bargaining com-
mittees met again. At this meeting the employer committee
presented a list of the names of employers it represented,
including that of the Respondent. The union committee
in turn informed the employer representatives that it had
received authority from the Union to negotiate a contract.
The progress of the negotiations was reported back to
the Employer Group at a meeting held on July 24 The
Respondent was also present at this meeting. The bargaining
committee sought to get a consensus from the employers
regarding the terms they would settle for in a collective-
bargaining agreement. The committee polled the employers
by having'them write out on slips of paper the terms
that they would accept A few days after the Employer
Group met, the union and employer bargaining committees
met again and negotiated the final terms of a collective-
bargaining agreement On July 29, there was another meeting
of the Employer Group at which Dixon and his committee
presented the terms of the final contract. As the final
contract was in the process of being printed, there were
only several drafts available which Dixon circulated among
the employers. The Respondent attended this meeting and
indicated, not to the bargaining committee, but to several
employers sitting near him that he was not satisfied with
the agreement. The Respondent stated that he would not
"live" with the contract as it was finally negotiated.
The Respondent never signed the current contract and
O'Grady testified that he was never requested to do so
by any representative of the Union. Prior to the expiration
of the 1966-69 contract, O'Grady employed three carpet
mechanics and two helpers who were members of the
Union. After August 1, 1969, O'Grady only employed
one mechanic and one helper; the mechanic was formerly
a union member, but apparently resigned from the Union
after August 1. O'Grady testified that since the negotiation
of the new contract, he has received two bills from the
According to Dixon, only one dissent was expressed regarding the
committee's authority to negotiate a contract The dissenter was a repre-
sentative of a company that was in the process of being purchased
by another company, and the representative claimed that he had no
authority to bind the new purchaser
Union requesting payment into the welfare, pension and
insurance funds for his two employees The Respondent
has not made any payments into these funds on behalf
of its employees.
George Cooney, financial secretary and business manager
of the Union, testified that prior to the negotiations of
the current collective-bargaining agreement the Union only
considered an employer bound when he signed the contract.
Cooney stated that this practice was changed during the
current bargaining sessions, and the Union insisted upon
receiving the names of the employers who delegated authori-
ty to the employer bargaining committee to negotiate on
their behalf This information was given to the Union
by the employer committee at the second bargaining session
Cooney also testified that he delegated the responsibility
to a field representative to get the Respondent to sign
the current agreement
The current collective-bargaining agreement contained
a clause which defined a "qualified" employer under the
terms of the agreement. Article III, dealing with the qualifi-
cation of the parties, defined a qualified employer as follows-
3.1. To qualify as an employer under this agreement,
an individual, firm or corporation shall:
(a) have a regular place of business located in a zone
in which the operation of a floor covering establish-
ment is permissible under applicable laws, ordinances
and regulations, which shall be opened and manned
with personnel for business during regular hours,
and which shall not be located in any residence,
house, garage, of other premises occupied as living
quarters, and which shall have sanitary facilities
on the premises for the use of employees;
This provision was also contained in the 1966-69 contract
but was not in any of the prior agreements.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
The Respondent's defense is predicated upon a claim
that the Employer Group did not constitute a mul' employ-
er bargaining unit with authority to bind individual partici-
pating employers to a collective-bargaining agreement, nego-
tiated by the employer committee. According to the
Respondent, the employers had traditionally gotten together
to discuss their stand on the negotiations, but no employer
was bound until he signed the agreement. The Respondent
further asserts that in many instances during past negotia-
tions, employers attending the meetings of the Employer
Group failed to sign or abide by the agreement negotiated
Examination of the facts leaves little doubt in my mind,
however, that there was indeed an employer bargaining
group organized solely for the purpose of negotiating the
contract with the Union, and that the Respondent was
a participant in this group. There is some suggestion in
the record that AFCD was the association bargaining for
the employers, but it is apparent that AFCD merely acted
as a convenor of all of the employers in the trade, whether
members of that association or not. AFCD did not purport
to be the association dealing with the Union, nor was
it acting on behalf of all of the employers. An informal,
ad hoc group was periodically put together by the employers
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during time for negotiations to enable them to deal with
the Union; and from this group a bargaining committee
was appointed to meet directly with the union representa-
tives. The mere fact that the ad hoc group had no formal
organization, adopted no bylaws, and had no membership
requirement, other than attendance at the meetings, does
not vitiate the conclusion that the employers constituted
a multiemployer bargaining unit for the purpose of negotiat-
ing a contract with the Union. It has been repeatedly
held by the Board and the Courts that a multiemployer
bargaining unit need not have a formal structure, or be
governed by bylaws, or have a dues requirement, or hold
regular meetings in order to be an appropriate bargaining
unit. The Kroeger Company, 148 NLRB 569, 673; Shamrock
Systems, Inc., 155 NLRB 1120; Korner Kafe, Inc., 156
NLRB 1157, 1161; The John J. Corbett Press, Inc., 160
NLRB 154, enfd. 409 F.2d 673 (C A. 2). Nor is it necessary
to show any formal delegation of authority to establish
an intent to engage in multiemployer bargaining. N.L.R.B.
v Dover Tavern Owners Association, 412 F 2d 725 (C.A.
3). The test to be applied is whether the members of
the group have indicated from the outset an unequivocal
intention to be bound in collective bargaining by group
rather than by individual action. Western States Regional
Council No. 3, International Woodworkers v. N.L.R.B., 398
F.2d 770, 773 (C A D.C.)
Applying these standards to the instant case, I find
and conclude that a multiemployer bargaining unit was
in fact established to negotiate with the Union. The history
of the relationship between the Union and the Employers
clearly shows that this was a pattern which was followed
whenever the parties negotiated a new collective-bargaining
agreement. The only variation that occurred during the
current negotiations was that each bargaining committee
came to the bargaining table armed with authority to act
on behalf of their Union with the names of the employers
it represented. If nothing else, this variation alone strength-
ens the conclusion that the employers intended to engage
in group rather than individual action The contention
that there was no formal delegation of authority to the
ad hoc Employer Group to act on behalf of the participants
is without merit As indicated above, the case law holds
that such formalities are not required Moreover, the record
shows that the Chairman of the employer bargaining com-
mittee asked for and received authority to negotiate a
contract with the Union on behalf of the Employer Group
It is significant to note at this juncture, that the Respondent
attended the meeting where this authority was conferred
and continued to attend all subsequent meetings of the
Employer Group. Even if as the Respondent contends,
the employers only granted the bargaining committee
authority to negotiate subject to their final approval, I
would nevertheless find that a multiemployer unit had
been established. In my judgment it is evident from the
actions of the Employer Group that they intended to be
bound by group rather than individual action, Korner Kafe,
Inc., supra; The Kroeger Company, supra; Quality Limestone
Products, Inc., 143 NLRB 589, 591; Krist Gradis, et al.,
121 NLRB 601, 610.
Having found that the Respondent was a member of
a multiemployer bargaining unit , it follows that the Respond-
ent could not relieve itself of the obligation to sign the
collective-bargaining agreement resulting from the negotia-
tions, absent unusual circumstances, without an unequivocal
and timely withdrawal from the bargaining unit . Anderson
Lithograph Company, Inc., 124 NLRB 920, enfd. sub nom.,
NL.R.B v Jeffries Bank Note Co., 281 F.2d 893 (C.A
9); Sheridan Creations, Inc, 148 NLRB 1503, enfd 357
F 2d 245, 247 (C.A 2). I find no unusual circumstances
in this case which would warrant conferring upon the
Respondent the right to avoid its lawful obligation to sign
the agreement negotiated through collective action Further-
more, I find that the Respondent had not effected a timely
withdrawal from collective action It is well settled that
an employer's withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining
unit is untimely, except on mutual consent, once bargaining
has begun NL.R.B. v. Spun-Jee Corporation, 385 F 2d
379, 381 (C.A 2), Sheridan Creations, supra; NL.R B.
v. Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 367 F.2d 55 (C A.
10). Thus O'Grady's statements that he could not "live"
with the agreement as negotiated was nothing more than
a belated effort to withdraw from the group action after
he determined that the efforts of that group action were
not to his liking The attempt to withdraw at this point
is not permissible and does not relieve the Respondent
from the obligation to sign the collective-bargaining agree-
ment negotiated by the Employer Group. Shamrock Systems,
Inc., supra; Strong Roofing & Insulating Co., 152 NLRB
9, 13, enfd. 386 F.2d 929 (C.A. 9), The John J. Corbett
Press, Inc., supra. Nor can it be said that the Union
acquiesced to the Respondent's attempted withdrawal from
the unit because the bills for payment into the welfare
and pension funds evince an intention to hold the Respond-
ent to the terms of the contract.
While there is no evidence in the record that the Union
ever requested the Respondent to sign the agreement, there
is testimony that in the past the Respondent always went
to the union hall to sign the negotiated contract. Nothing
in the record indicates whether the Respondent did this
of its own volition or whether it-was done at the request
of the Union I find, however, since the Respondent had
always gone to the union hall to sign the negotiated agree-
ment and since the Respondent's obligation to sign the
contract was a continuing one, the absence of a specific
request does not relieve the Respondent of its duty to
execute the contract. Rather I find that in keeping with
past practice the Respondent had a duty to go to the
union hall and sign the document.
One other defense asserted by the Respondent remains
for consideration The Respondent claims that under section
3.1 of the contract it does not come within the definition
of a "qualified" employer. This provision was also contained
in the immediate past contract to which the Respondent
was a party. The Respondent did not then seek to relieve
itself from the obligation to sign that agreement on the
basis that it did not qualify as an employer; even though
its circumstances were similar. As pointed out by the General
Counsel, the Respondent participated fully at all of the
employer meetings and gave every impression of being
a member of the Employer Group. To allow the Respondent
now to claim it is not an employer under the terms of
the agreement after having held itself out to be one and
BILL O'GRADY CARPET SERVICE, INC 591
after having participated fully in the negotiations through
the Employer Group, would allow the Respondent to
frustrate the concept of multiemployer bargaining and the
policies and purposes of the National Labor Relations Act
Cf N L R B v Southwestern Colorado Contractors
Association, 379 F.2d 360 In these circumstances I agree
with the General Counsel that the Respondent is estopped
from asserting the claim that it does not qualify as an
employer and hence has no obligation to sign the agreement
negotiated on its behalf by the Employer Group
On the basis of the foregoing I find and conclude that
the Respondent is under a duty to sign the collective-
bargaining agreement negotiated on its behalf by the ad
hoc Employer Group through the bargaining committee,
and further, that the Respondent 's failure to sign and
abide by the collective- bargaining agreement is a violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
bargaining agreement negotiated in its behalf by the ad
hoc employer bargaining group , I shall recommend that
the Respondent forthwith sign the 1969-72 collective-bar-
gaining agreement entered into between the Union and
the employer bargaining group , and further , that the
Respondent give retroactive effect to the terms and condi-
tions contained in this agreement , and make whole its
employees for any loss of wages of other employment
benefits they may have suffered as a result of failure to
comply with the provisions of the collective -bargaining
agreement . Community Market, Inc., 179 NLRB No. 2,
Commercial Automotive Corporation , 169 NLRB No 76
Backpay, if any, shall be computed on a quarterly basis
in a manner consistent with the Board policy described
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum computed in the manner
set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 139 NLRB
716.
Accordingly , upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and upon the entire record in this
case, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I make the
following
1. Bill O'Grady Carpet Service, Inc, is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2. Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile and Resilient Floor Cover-
ing Layers, Local Union No 419, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
3 The employees of the employer members of the bargain-
ing group covered by the collective-bargaining agreement
negotiated between the Employer Group and the Union
on August 1, 1969, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act, and all other employees, constitutes a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4 The above-named Union has been at all times material
herein and is now the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of all of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act
5 By refusing on and after August 1, 1969, to execute
and comply with the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement negotiated between the Employer's Group and
the above-named Union, the Respondent has engaged and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in certain unfair labor practices , I shall recom-
mend the issuance of an order that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Respondent has failed to
execute or to comply with the terms of the collective-
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, Bill O'Grady Carpets Service, Inc, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to sign and failing to abide by the terms
of the collective-bargaining agreement, effective August 1,
1969, between the ad hoc Employer Bargaining Group
and Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile and Resilient Floor Cover-
ing Layers, Local Union No 419, AFL-CIO
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with , restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Forthwith sign and abide by the terms of the collective-
)argaining agreement described in paragraph 1(a) of this
Order.
(b) Give retroactive effect to the terms and conditions
of the collective-bargaining agreement described in para-
graph 1(a) of this Order, including, but not limited to,
the provisions relating to wages and other employment
benefits, and in the manner set forth in section of this
Decision and Order entitled "The Remedy." Make whole
its employees for any losses they may have suffered by
reason of the failure to be a party to said collective-
bargaining agreement
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to determine the amount due as backpay and other
benefits for its employees
(d) Post in conspicuous places at its place of business,
copies of said notice attached hereto and marked
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Appendix."' Copies of said notice on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 27 shall, after being
duly signed by the Respondent, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision
and Recommended Order what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.'
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations setting
forth violations not specifically found herein be dismissed in
their entirety.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and
Order, and all objections thereto shall be deened waived for all purposes In
the event the Board Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director
for Region 27, in writing , within 10 days of the date of this Order,
what steps have been take - to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
n n Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify all of our employees that.
WE WILL forthwith sign the collective-bargaining agree-
ment , effective August 1, 1969, between the Employer
Bargaining Group of the floor covering industry and the
Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile and Resilient Floor Covering
Layers, Local Union No 419, AFL-CIO
WE WILL give retroactive effect to the terms and condi-
ions contained in the said bargaining agreement, including,
)ut not limited to, the provisions relating to wages and
-)ther employment benefits
WE WILL make whole our employees for any losses
hey may have suffered by reason of our refusal to sign
aid contract.
WE WILL NOT continue to refuse to sign the above-
mentioned collective-bargaining agreement or in any other
like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
BILL O'GRADY
CARPET SERVICE, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative)
(Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office New
Custom House, Room 260, 721 19th Street, Denver, Colora-
do 80202, Telephone 303-297-3551.