C. H. Heist Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 355 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

C. H. HEIST CORP.
C. H. Heist Corp. and Local 324, International Union
of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and Local
Union Nos. 20 and 337, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Inc. Case 7-CA-7552
October 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On May 4, 1970, Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief were filed on behalf of Local Union
No. 20, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Inc.
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 and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, C. H. Heist Corporation, Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting in part:
I would not find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain with Operating Engi-
neers for a unit of employees working out of the
Respondent's new sub-office at Wyandotte, Michi-
gan. That office was initially staffed with employees
from the Toledo area office and the work involved
355
was previously handled by employees in the area unit
covered by a current union security contract with
Teamsters Local 20, before Respondent's reorganiza-
tion establishing the sub-office in the geographic
territory of Teamster Local 337 with whom Respon-
dent had also executed a contract. Thus, at the time of
the demand for recognition and bargaining by
Operating Engineers in September 1969, Respondent
had colorable claims of accretion by the Teamsters. In
the face of a claim by an outside union, such accretion
claims raise a substantial question concerning repre-
sentation. In these circumstances, and notwithstand-
ing Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(2), I do
not believe a bargaining order appropriate.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: This case was heard
on March 10 and 11, 1970, at Detroit, Michigan, pursuant
to a charge filed on October 1, 1969, and a complaint issued
on December 31, 1969, and amended at the hearing. The
complaint alleges that Respondent C. H. Heist Corp.
illegally assisted and supported Local Union Nos. 20 and
337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
Local 20 and Local 337, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
refused to bargain collectively with Local 324, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Operating Engineers, as the representative of its "hydro-
jet" cleaning employees at its installation in Wyandotte,
Michigan, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, oral argument
presented at the hearing by the General Counsel,' and my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a New York corporation which maintains
facilities in New York, West Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio,
is engaged in industrial cleaning by "hydro-jet" and
sandblast processes, and in industrial painting. The unfair
labor practices involved in this proceeding are alleged to
have occurred at Respondent' s installation in Wyandotte,
Michigan, which received goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 from out-of-State sources during the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969. Respondent during that same
fiscal year performed services valued at over $50,000 to
interstate concerns located in Michigan and also performed
services in excess of $50,000 to interstate concerns located
in States other than Michigan. I find that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
I The transcript of the oral argument is corrected pursuant to the
stipulation of the parties
186 NLRB No. 57
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED maintenance work. They obtain supplies from each other
occasionally.
On September 4, 1969, the Wyandotte installation
employed 10 hydro jet cleaners and helpers, each of whom
had been hired in the Detroit area . These employees were
paid at wage rates set by Superintendent Eley, who
followed the wage rates in the July 1968 contract between
Respondent and Local 20 "to the extent of a minimum."
Eley testified that he grants raises more quickly than does
Toledo. Leadmen received a 10-cent wage differential
called for by the July 1968 contract. The Wyandotte
employees received the same vacation and holiday benefits
as the Toledo employees.
B. Assistance and Support to Local 337
In late May or early June 1969, Respondent, by Attorney
Marvin Breskin , advised Charles Nussmeier, business
representative of Local 337, that Respondent was transfer-
ring an operation in Toledo to the Detroit area and
expected to transfer members of Local 20 to the jurisdiction
of Local 337 in June or July.3 A few weeks later, Nussmeier
and another officer of Local 337 met with Breskin,
Superintendent Eley, and Vice President Louis Borins and
negotiated a collective-bargaining contract covering the
Wyandotte hydro jet cleaners and helpers, effective for a 3-
year period beginning July 1, 1969.4 In August, Attorney
Breskin told Nussmeier over the telephone that the
Wyandotte employees at a job on Zug Island "were being
cited as non-union by the Laborers Union and the
Operating Engineers." He asked Nussmeier for "some
method of identification." Nussmeier asked Breskin, "You
are now transferring the people from Toledo to Detroit?"
Breskin said "Yes" Nussmeier said he would like to "go
through the contract with them" and Breskin said he would
make arrangements for him to do so. Nussmeier said he
would have transfer cards issued to the Wyandotte
employees at Zug Island. He obtained their names and
social security numbers from Superintendent Eley and had
his office prepare transfer cards from Local 20 for them. He
called Breskin and told him the cards were ready. Breskin
picked the cards up at Local 337's office. The cards were
handed to employees Brockmiller, McCandless, and
Stewart, by Eley and pump foreman William Thacker.
Nussmeier met with the Wyandotte employees on the
morning of September 9.5 He said Local 337 was their
bargaining agent because they had been transferred from
the jurisdiction of Local 20. He explained the contract they
would be operating under and asked them to sign
applications for Local 337 membership. The employees
advised Nussmeier that they were not transferees from
Toledo and had signed cards for the Operating Engineers.
On September 9 or 10, Nussmeier called Attorney Breskin,
said he had been "conned," and repudiated the July 1,
1969, contract.
representation by the Operating Engineers , "The Company is the one that
writes out the paychecks and you will take what union we give you."
4 Nussmeier testified that he was shown a letter at this meeting from
Local 20 authorizing the transfer of Toledo employees to be assigned to the
Wyandotte operation from its jurisdiction to Local 337.
S Respondent paid the employees for the time spent at this meeting at
the Wyandotte facility.
Locals 20 and 337, and the Operating Engineers, are
labor organizations under Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Toledo and Wyandotte Installations
Respondent maintains an installation at Toledo, Ohio.
On July 25, 1968, Respondent and Local 20 executed a
union-security contract covering all employees "working
out of the Toledo, Ohio, division and engaged in `hydro jet'
cleaning process" but excluding supervisors, office employ-
ees, salesmen, and painters. The contract was to remain in
effect until July 11, 1971, and specified the area to be served
as "Northern Ohio, Southern Michigan including Detroit,
Northern Indiana and contiguous territories."
In October 1968, Clifford Biehl was the manager at
Toledo and M. Lee Eley was the assistant manager. At this
time, Toledo had six or seven pump trucks, three of which
were regularly dispatched to the Detroit area to service
Great Lakes Steel Corporation, Hanna Furnace, Edward C.
Levy Company, and Detroit Edison Company. The Toledo
employees who performed the Detroit area work usually
returned to Toledo each day but on occasion remained
overnight in Detroit. In November 1968, Respondent
decided to establish a "sub-office" in the Detroit area. A
temporary office was set up at a motel for Eley, who was
appointed superintendent for the Detroit operation. Three
pump trucks and auxiliary equipment were located at the
motel . The hydro-jet employees during November and
December 1968 consisted of experienced Toledo employees
and men hired by Eley in the Detroit area.
Eley, who had been subject to Biehl's supervision, early in
January 1969 began to report directly to Andrew Crowe,
Respondent's manager of operations at Buffalo, New York,
as did Biehl . On January 25, 1969,2 Respondent acquired a
building at Wyandotte, Michigan, for its Detroit opera-
tions. By late March, the working force at Wyandotte was
made up entirely of employees who lived in the Detroit
area . Wyandotte had five pump trucks by April or May and
added a sixth in June or July.
The Wyandotte and Toledo installations, which are
about the same size, help each other out "whenever they are
overloaded to a point where they don't have the equipment
or the manpower." Detroit personnel worked in the Toledo
area 13 times between April 1969 and March 1970, and
Toledo personnel worked in the Detroit area 22 times
between January and June 1969. The employees wherever
they work are paid at their regular rate by their own office.
The Wyandotte and Toledo installations, which are about
60 miles apart, maintain separate office records and
employee time books. Each installation performs its own
2 All dates hereafter are in 1969 unless otherwise noted.
3 In June, Pump Foreman William Thacker told William McCandless, a
Wyandotte employee since March , that the employees would be going into
a union "within a couple of weeks, most likely the Teamsters ." McCandless
said, "Nobody tells me how to vote." Thacker replied, "you will get the
Union the company designates and if you don't like it you can take it up
with the NLRB." Also in June, Superintendent Eley told McCandless and
William Brockmiller, when the men brought up the matter of
C. H. HEIST CORP.
C. The Refusal To Bargain with the Operating
Engineers
Between August 29 and September 3, 1969, Business
Representative Ronald Rama obtained cards authorizing
the Operating Engineers as their collective-bargaining
representative from 9 of the 10 hydro-jet cleaners and
helpers employed at Wyandotte. On September 4, Rama
asked Superintendent Eley for recognition and offered to
show him the authorization cards. Eley referred Rama to
Attorney Breskin . Later that day, F. Daniel Bohn, the
Operating Engineers' attorney, called Breskin and told him
the Operating Engineers had signed authorization cards
from a majority of the Wyandotte employees. He requested
bargaining but Breskin replied there was a "problem"
because the Teamsters had a jurisdictional award and a
contract. Bohn called Breskin again about September 15
and said he had read the case and did not believe it was a
bar to Respondent's dealing with the Operating Engineers 6
Breskin replied that Respondent had a contract with the
Teamsters which was a bar to any dealings with the
Operating Engineers . Bohn said he did not believe Local 20
had territorial jurisdiction in Michigan. Breskin replied that
Local 337 was administering the Local 20 contract "on
some arrangement between the two locals." Bohn said the
Local 20 contract "was not designed to cover a separate
unit here" and requested recognition and collective
bargaining. Breskin said he would contact Vice President
Borins. Bohn called Breskin a week later. Breskin said
Borins' position was that Respondent could not deal with
the Operating Engineers because of its contract with Local
20.
D. Assistance and Support to Local 20
The Operating Engineers filed the charge in this case on
October 1, 1969. A few days later, Breskin met with the
Wyandotte employees. He mentioned the Local 20 contract
and told the employees that they would have to sign up with
Local 20 or be out of work. Business Representative Irvin
Mowry of Local 20 told five Wyandotte employees at a
meeting at Wyandotte premises on October 29 that Local
20 had a union-security contract with Respondent and that
they had a few days to sign membership cards or he would
require Respondent to discharge them. Eley thereafter told
the hydro jet employees that they had to sign Teamsters
authorization cards or there would be no work for them.
The employees on the advice of Attorney Bohn signed
Local 20 cards, attached a statement that the cards were
signed under threat of no work, and gave the cards and
attachments to Eley. On November 4, Mowry sent a letter
to Eley demanding enforcement of the union-security
clause in the July 1968 contract, payment of union dues by
the Wyandotte employees from the dates first due under
the contract, and retroactive health and welfare payments
by Respondent due under the contract for those employees.
Respondent thereafter checked off union dues from the pay
6 The Board in a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Section 10(b)
of the Act determined on April 25, 1969, that the Toledo employees
represented by Local 20 rather than a laborer's local were entitled to
perform hydro-jet cleaning at the Ecorse , Michigan plant of Great Lakes
Steel Corporation. Local Union No 334, Laborers International Union of
357
of the Wyandotte employees and made health and welfare
payments for them, retroactive to the dates due under the
July 1968 contract.
E. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Assistance and support to Locals 20 and 337
Although none of the Wyandotte employees had
authorized Local 337 to represent them, Respondent
recognized Local 337 as their collective-bargaining agent,7
gave Local 337 cards to employees, executed a contract
with Local 337, and paid the employees to attend a meeting
with Business Representative Nussmeier at the Wyandotte
premises. Nussmeier credibly testified that Respondent
represented to him that the Wyandotte employees were
Local 20 transferees and that he repudiated the contract
with Respondent upon learning from them that they were
not Teamsters members and had designated the Operating
Engineers as their collective-bargaining representative. I
find, accordingly, that Respondent by the conduct
described above, assisted and supported Local 337, in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
Following Local 337's repudiation of its contract, and
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Operating
Engineers, Respondent notified the Wyandotte employees
that they were subject to the Local 20 contract and required
them to become members of Local 20 as a condition of
employment. In its answer to the complaint, Respondent
contends in substance that the Wyandotte employees
constitute an accretion to the unit covered by its union-
security contract with Local 20 and hence that the contract
applied to them at all relevant times . The Wyandotte
facility is about 60 miles distant from the Toledo facility,
has approximately the same number of employees, and has
been independent of Toledo supervision since January
1969. Both facilities maintain separate office records and
employee time cards, have their own equipment, procure
their own supplies, and perform their own maintenance
work. Some Toledo employees worked for Wyandotte for
the first few months of its operation, but Wyandotte began
the hiring of Detroit area workers in November 1968 and
by late March 1969 all its employees lived in the Detroit
area . Wyandotte and Toledo send crews and equipment to
each other on an emergency basis, but the record shows no
permanent exchange of employees between the two
operations. Both employee groups, however, have identical
skills, perform the same type of work, and, at all times, have
had the same or similar vacations and holiday benefits.
Wyandotte, however, has granted pay increases more
readily than has Toledo. In these circumstances, and as
Respondent's dealings with Local 337 indicate that it
considered the contract with Local 20 no bar to separate
representation of the Wyandotte employees, I find that the
Wyandotte operation is essentially an autonomous unit in
its day-to-day operations, that its employees constitute a
North America, AFL-CIO, et at, 175 NLRB No. 103
7 Superintendent Eley and Pump Foreman Thacker told employees over
their protests that they would be represented by a union selected by
Respondent , probably the Teamsters.
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
separate appropriate unit , and that they are not an
accretion to the Local 20 contract units Moreover, even
assuming the Toledo and Wyandotte employees may be
appropriately represented in a single bargaining unit, I find
that the Wyandotte employees would not be subject to the
Local 20 contract without having had an opportunity to
determine for themselves whether or not they wished to be
represented by Local 20. Melbet Jewelry Co., Inc., 180
NLRB No. 24.
As the Wyandotte employees are appropriately repre-
sented in a separate bargaining unit, and as Local 20 at no
relevant time represented an uncoerced majority of these
employees, I conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing Local 20 as their
collective-bargaining representative and by requiring them
to become members of Local 20 as a condition of
employment pursuant to the union-security provisions of
the Local 20 contract. Cf. Schreiber Trucking Company,
Inc., 148 NLRB 697, 702-703; Masters-Lake Success, Inc.,
124 NLRB 580, 592-593.
bargaining demand , I find that its refusal to bargain was
violative of Section 8(a)(5). Sturgeon Electric Co., Inc., 166
NLRB 210; Centac Corp., 179 NLRB No. 46.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Locals 20 and 337 and the Operating Engineers are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By the acts and conduct herein found violative of the
Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(axl),
(2), and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Tim REMEDY
2. The refusal to bargain with the Operating
Engineers
I have found that the Wyandotte hydro jet employees
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, and the record
establishes that the Operating Engineers represented 9 of
the 10 employees in the bargaining unit when that labor
organization, in September 1969, requested recognition and
contract negotiations. Respondent refused to recognize and
bargain with the Operating Engineers on the ground that
Local 20 had a jurisdictional award and a contract covering
these employees. As previously found, neither the award
nor the contract established Local 20 as the bargaining
representative of the Wyandotte employees. I find further
that Respondent's asserted reason for refusing to bargain
with the Operating Engineers was insubstantial and not
made in good faith. Despite the contract and the Board's
jurisdiction award, Respondent showed Business Repre-
sentative Nussmeier a letter from Local 20 giving Local 337
jurisdiction over Toledo employees to be transferred to
Wyandotte and negotiated a contract with Local 337. It
applied the union-security, dues-checkoff, and health and
welfare provisions of the Local 20 contract to the
Wyandotte employees only after Local 337 repudiated its
contract and the Operating Engineers requested recogni-
tion and bargaining. I find from these facts that Respon-
dent's claim that the Wyandotte employees were covered
by the Local 20 contract did not give rise to a genuine
question concerning representation which justified Respon-
dent in refusing to honor the Operating Engineers'
bargaining demand. Cf. Centac Corp., 179 NLRB No. 46.
As Respondent did not challenge the Operating Engi-
neers' majority status based on authorization cards, did not
assert any valid basis for its refusal to bargain with the
Operating Engineers, and gave Locals 20 and 337 illegal
assistance and support despite the Operating Engineers'
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Operating Engineers first requested recognition and
bargaining on September 4, 1969. Respondent nevertheless
paid its employees to attend a meeting on September 9 with
Business Representative Nussmeier of Local 337. After
Nussmeier learned that the Wyandotte employees were not
Teamsters members and repudiated the Local 337 contract,
Respondent persisted in its refusal to bargain with the
Operating Engineers, applied the Local 20 contract to the
Wyandotte employees, and required them to become Local
20 members as a condition of employment. Respondent's
conduct demonstrates its strong opposition to dealing with
the Operating Engineers, tends to undermine the Operating
Engineers' majority status, and precludes the holding of a
fair election. I shall therefore recommend a bargaining
order which I find is required not only to remedy
Respondent's refusal to bargain, but also to remedy
Respondent's unlawful assistance and support to Locals 20
and 337. Centac Corp., 179 NLRB No. 46.
I shall further recommend that Respondent reimburse
the Wyandotte employees for any dues, initiation fees, and
other moneys checked off or paid by them pursuant to
Respondent's contract with Local 20, together with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, Respondent, C. H. Heist Corp.,
its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its Wyandotte, Michigan hydro jet
8 The Local 20 contract covers employees "working out of the Toledo, Corporation, the Board awarded the disputed work at that plant to the
Ohio, division ," and includes Southern Michigan and Detroit in the area to employees represented at that time by Local 20 . The award was based upon
be served . In its jurisdictional dispute decision of April 25 , 1969 (supra, ftn. evidence adduced at a hearing held on October 9 and 10 , 1968, before the
6), finding inter alia that the contract was "regular on its face" and establishment of the Wyandotte operation . The Board, accordingly , did not
specifically covered the Ecorse , Michigan , plant of Great Lakes Steel have before it the accretion issue in the present case.
C. H. HEIST CORP.
cleaning employees with loss of employment if they do not
become members of Local 20 or Local 337, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Inc.
(b) Permitting Local 20 or Local 337, or any of its agents,
to solicit its Wyandotte employees to sign membership
cards or to conduct other union business at its Wyandotte
installation , or paying its Wyandotte employees to attend
meetings with such agents.
(c) Recognizing Local 337 or Local 20 as the representa-
tive of the Wyandotte "hydro jet" cleaning employees until
after it has first complied with the provisions of this Order
requiring it to bargain with Local 324, International Union
of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, and thereafter unless
and until either of said labor organizations shall have been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
representative of such employees.
(d) Giving effect to its July 1, 1969, collective-bargaining
contract with Local 337, or applying its July 25, 1968,
contract with Local 20 to the Wyandotte hydro jet cleaning
employees; provided that nothing herein shall require
Respondent to vary employment conditions established
through these contracts.
(e) In any other manner, assisting and supporting Local
20, Local 337, or any other labor organization.
(f) Failing or refusing to bargain collectively, upon
request, with Local 324, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its hydro jet cleaning employees at its
installation at Wyandotte, Michigan.
(g) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 324,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as
the collective-bargaining representative of its hydro jet
cleaning employees at Wyandotte, Michigan.
(b) Withdraw and withhold recognition of Locals 20 or
337 as the bargaining representative of its Wyandotte
employees, and revoke its collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 20 insofar as it affects those employees.
(c) Reimburse the Wyandotte hydro jet cleaning employ-
ees who became members of Local 20 in accordance with
Respondent's July 25, 1968, contract with Local 20, for
moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for
initiation fees, dues, assessments , or other obligations of
membership in Local 20, together with interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll and personnel records and all other data necessary
to analyze and compute the moneys due under the terms of
this Order.
(e) Post at its Wyandotte, Michigan, installation copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
359
customarily posted, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 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 Section 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 deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall 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 "
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from
LOCAL 20 and Local 337, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America unless and until either of them is certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as your collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT permit Local 20 or Local 337 to hold
meetings with employees or recruit members in our
plant.
WE WILL NOT apply to our Wyandotte employees our
contract with Local 20 for our Toledo employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you because you
do not join Local 20 or Local 337.
WE WILL NOT contribute support to Local 20 or Local
337 in any other manner.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to
self-organization under the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively with Local 324,
International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative
of all our hydro jet cleaning employees working out of
our Wyandotte, Michigan, place of business, exclusive
of office clerical employees, professional employees,
salesmen , technical employees, guards, and supervisors.
If an understanding is reached, we will embody the
understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL reimburse our employees for moneys paid
by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation
fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of member-
ship in Local 20.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. H. HEIST CORP. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
(Employer) from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Dated By Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
(Representative) (Title) its provisions , may be directed to the Board's Office, 500
Book Building , 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit,
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by Michigan 48226 , Telephone 313-226-3200.
anyone.