Canton Sign Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 906 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Canton Sign Co. and Sign Display Pictorial Artists
and Allied Workers, Local 639, Affiliated With
Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and
Paperhangers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
8-CA-5039
February 28, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On November 25, 1968, Trial Examiner Samuel
M. Singer 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 the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief
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 hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Canton Sign
Co., Canton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
'The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's Decision, in Coto, on
the ground of alleged bias and partiality After a careful review of the
record, we specifically reject the Respondent's contentions, there being no
evidence that the Trial Examiner prejudged this case or made prejudicial
rulings
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SAMUEL M. SINGER, Trial Examiner This proceeding,
heard at Canton, Ohio, on September 12, pursuant to
charge filed on May 28 and complaint issued on July 12,
1968, concerns allegations that Respondent (herein
sometimes called the Company) violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, by refusing
to meet and bargain with the Charging Party as
representative of its employees , on and after April 19,
1968. All parties appeared and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses General Counsel and Respondent
presented their respective positions in oral argument at the
conclusion of the hearing Only Respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case' and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Ohio corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Canton, Ohio, is engaged in
the business of manufacturing, erecting, and maintaining
signs and displays Its services to employers in interstate
commerce are valued in excess of $50,000 annually. I find
that at all material times Respondent has been and is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that assertion of jurisdiction here is proper '
iI LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is undisputed, and I find, that Sign and Pictorial
Painters Local No 89, affiliated with the Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
AFL-CIO (herein called Local 89), was a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act until it merged
with the Charging Party (herein called Local 639) on
February 2, 1966 S
Although in its answer to the complaint, Respondent
expressly admitted that Local 639 is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act, at the hearing it amended
its answer to deny this complaint allegation The
uncontradicted facts clearly demonstrate that Local 639
admits employees to membership, that it represents them
in collective bargaining, that it has signed collective
agreements with employers, and indeed (as hereafter
shown) that Respondent itself bargained with that Union
as representative of its employees I find that Local 639 is
a labor organization "in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpase, in whole or part, of dealing
with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work," within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
As noted, the issue here is whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to meet and
bargain with the Union as representative of its employees,
on and after April 19, 1968. Respondent's defenses are:
(1) that Local 639 was not the majority representative of
its employees, basically because (contrary to General
Counsel's claim) it was not the successor to and entitled
to the bargaining rights of Local 89 with which
Respondent has had contractual relations, and (2) that
Respondent was in any event under no obligation to meet
with Local 639's bargaining committee because it included
employees of employers other than Respondent
'Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated October 23, 1968
'The circumstances surrounding the merger are discussed infra, section
III, B
174 NLRB No. 133
CANTON SIGN CO. 907
B Merger of Locals 89 and 639'
Local 89 had been the exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in an
appropriate unit' for many years Its last collective
agreement with Respondent, signed on March 31, 1964,
was for a 3-year term (April I, 1964 - April 1, 1967),
automatically renewable for additional 1-year periods
unless either party gave notice to amend or terminate at
least 90 days before the scheduled expiration date. Local
89 had around 35 members in February 1966, 7 of whom
were employed by Respondent'
On January 26, 1966, Local 89's membership voted to
hold a "special meeting" on February 2, 1966, "to
consider a proposal to merge" with Local 639,
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.' A letter was "to be
sent each [Local 89] member detailing the benefits and
obligations of each local " Notice of the special meeting,
together with a statement of "the dues structure and
benefits," were thereafter mailed to all of Local 89's then
approximately 35 members
The minutes of the February 2 special meeting indicate
that after discussion of the merger and a statement by
Local 89's attorney as to the procedure to be followed "to
prevent future misunderstandings" from the merger, the
membership passed a motion "by secret ballot" to merge
with Local 639.' Local 639 similarly voted for the merger,
and on February 23, 1966, the International approved it
The record establishes that all Local 89 employees
(including those who did not attent the February 2
meeting) were notified (by letter) of the merger vote and
of the dues and benefits in effect. Local 639 assumed all
assets and liabilities of Local 89, and Local 639's officers
took over the previous duties of Local 89 officers Former
Local 89 members, including Thomas Franta, thenceforth
paid their membership dues directly to Local 639.8
C Contract Negotiations'
On January 17, 1967, Bart Vitti, Local 639's business
representative, wrote to Respondent (in the name of Local
639) requesting a meeting to discuss "termination of the
contract currently in existence" between the Company and
'The findings in this section are based on documentary evidence and
essentially uncontradicted testimony
"'All employees employed by the Respondent who are engaged in the
following occupations designing , lettering , pictorial work , advertising
displays, neon and plastic advertising , sign erection , painting all signs and
poster boards , screen processing display work , and sign maintenance of all
the above , excluding all office clerical employees , and all professional
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act "
'Nyland , Saracina, Clevenger , Mac Cartney Kuhnash, Minor, and
Thomas Franta Thomas Franta , Company President Edward Franta's
brother , was also vice president of Respondent He performed unit work as
well as supervised
'Local 89, headquartered in Canton, also covered neighboring areas
including Massillon and Alliance, Ohio Both Local 89 and Local 639 were
affiliated with the same International Local 639 had a membership of
approximately 300
'Of the 15 employees present 13 voted for , and 2 against , the merger
'It was stipulated that from February 1966 through November 1967,
Respondent through its officials (Company President Edward Franta and
Office Manager John Franta ) "signed and issued checks to Local 639
for payment of dues owing by Mr Thomas J Franta to Local 639
Under Local 639's rules , Thomas Franta remained a member through May
1968, although he ceased paying dues in December 1967 A member 3
months in arrears is suspended and 3 months later is dropped from
membership
'The findings in this section are based on essentially undisputed
testimony and documentary evidence
Local 89, noting that the contract "will expire by its terms
on April 1, 1967 " On January 27, 1967, Company
President Franta answered that the Union's "proposal
comes too late for this year" since "the Union . . failed
to give [timely] notice"; i e , 90 days before the April i
expiration date as required in the contract Franta° stated,
however, that he would be "glad" to discuss "any specific
problem or proposal" "which you wish us to consider ""
On May 11, 1967,11 Local 639 filed a petition for an
election to be certified as bargaining representative in a
multiemployer unit, composed of employees of
Respondent and two other employers." Responding to this
petition, Franta wrote the National Labor Relations
Board on May 17 that "[w]hile we recognize Local 639
and the International, we feel that our present contract
[signed with Local 89] is a bar to any election." Local 639
later withdrew its petition
On June 13, Local 639 Business Representative Vitti
requested a meeting with Respondent, in accordance with
the existing 1964 collective agreement requiring
Respondent to-meet with the Union twice a year (in
January and June) "to discuss changes in the wording of
the contract mutually agreeable to both Employers and
the Union " Thereafter, Respondent met with Vitti and
two Local 639 committeemen (one a Company employee
and the other a McQueen Sign Co employee, supra) to
discuss wage increases and the problem of contractors
Franta proposed "substantial wage" increases to Local
639 provided that Local 639 agreed on a 3-year extension
of the 1964 collective agreement signed with predecessor
Local 89. The Union's representatives rejected Franta's
proposal and no agreement was reached
On December 27, Vitti notified Respondent of the
Union's "wishes to discuss termination" of the 1964
collective agreement (which was to "expire by its terms"
on April 1) and to negotiate " a replacement agreement "-
On February 22, Company President Franta requested
Local 639 ("Attention: Mr. Bart J. Vitti") to present its
proposal in writing in order "to expedite things."
The parties met six times between March 12 and April
19 (March 12, 26, and 30 and April 5, 15, and 19). Local
639's representatives included Vitti and employees of
Respondent, McQueen, and Adams," Respondent's
representatives included President Franta and Harvey B
Rector 15 The parties exchanged drafts, submitted
proposals and counterproposals, and discussed various
"Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Franta are to Company
President Edward Franta (the dominant principal of Respondent ) and not
to Vice President Thomas Franta
"So far as appears , Franta ' s January 27 communication is the first in
which he addressed Vitti as business representative of Local 639 Franta
had dealt and negotiated with Vitti in January and February 1966
concerning such matters as wages, Blue Cross coverage , and a layoff, but
the formal correspondence indicates that Vitti at that time acted as
representative of Local 89, the merger of Locals 89 and 639 not yet being
in operation While the record shows that Vitti, as business representative
of Local 639, pressed Franta to sign a "Union Label Contract" in March
- May 1967, Franta never signed such contract Franta admitted,
however, that although he knew that his employees were sometimes putting
the Local 639 label on his products , he gave no instructions that they cease
affixing the label
"All subsequent date references are May 1967 - May 1968 , unless
otherwise indicated
"McQueen Sign & Lighting Company and J Adams System, Inc The
record indicates that Local 89 has previously bargained jointly with all
three employers , with each signing the latest (1964) contract separately
"The Union was negotiating contracts with all three employers at this
time
"Rector, a "management representative" and Respondent's chief
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issues, including wages - the most disputed subject.
Although the extent of agreements and concessions made
by each party is disputed, it is clear that agreement was
reached on many points.
In the meantime, on April 8, Local 639 went on strike
against Respondent and the two other employers with
whom it was then negotiating contracts (McQueen and
Adams, supra, fn. 13) 16 All of Respondent's then five
employees participated in the strike " On April 17,
Respondent (through Rector) filed an unfair labor practice
charge alleging that Local 639's picketing was "with an
object of forcing or requiring" Respondent to recognize
and bargain with it (without the Union's filing a
representative petition to establish its representative
status) and therefore in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of
the Act At the April 19 bargaining session, Rector told
Business Representative Vitti that Respondent would no
longer meet with him unless Local 639 was shown to be
"the proper bargaining representative of the people at
[the] shop " Rector also said that Respondent would not
negotiate with an employee committee consisting of
employees of other employers The April 19 meeting was
terminated without discussing any bargaining subjects.
On May 3, the Regional Director dismissed the unfair
labor practice charges filed by Respondent, finding that
the object of the picketing was not to force or require
Respondent to recognize Local 639 in violation of Section
8(b)(7)(C). The Regional Director stated that "[o]n the
contrary, the evidence disclosed that the Employer, over
the period of approximately two years, has recognized and
bargained," and otherwise dealt with that Union 1 S
Subsequently, Business Representative Vitti requested
Company President Franta and Management
Representative Rector for a bargaining meeting, but
neither agreed to meet
D. Conclusions
As noted, at the April 19, 1968, bargaining session
Respondent declined to further recognize and deal with
Local 639 unless and until it established its majority
status Respondent took this position although it dealt
with Vitti, as Local 639's business representative since at
least January 1967, met with him to negotiate
"replacement" of the 1964 collective agreement with
predecessor Local 89, and submitted (at the April 5, 1968,
bargaining session) a draft agreement expressly naming
Local 639 as the employees' bargaining representative At
the hearing Respondent contended that Local 639 was in
effect a usurper of the authority of Local 89 with which it
had signed the last (1964) collective agreement. It is
apparently on this theory that Respondent on April 17,
1968, filed Section 8(b)(7)(C) charges, alleging that Local
639 had picketed with an object of forcing the Company
to recognize and bargain with it without having filed a
representation petition to establish its representative
representative at the hearing , entered the negotiations on March 26 James
M Rector, his son and Respondent's attorney of record , attended two
meetings All subsequent references to "Rector " are to Harvey B Rector
"The strike vote - in which only employees of the three employers
participated - was taken on March 28
"Nyland, Saracina , Clevenger , DeMate, and Thomas Franta As
previously noted , Thomas Franta , an officer of the Company , was also a
member of the Union, he apparently abandoned the strike on the second
day The four other employees did not return to work Insofar as appears,
the strike is still in progress , with intermittent picketing
"Respondent's appeal from the Regional Director ' s refusal to issue a
complaint was denied on June 13
status
In the final analysis, the question of whether
Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with Local 639
turns on whether that union was successor to and entitled
to the bargaining rights of Local 89, as contended by
General Counsel See Union Carbide and Carbon Corp v
N L R B, 244 F 2d 672, 673 (C A 6), Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO [Montgomery Ward
& Co ] v N L R B., 373 F 2d 655, 657 (C A.D C );
Carpinteria Lemon Association v N L R B, 240 F 2d
554, 557 (C A 9) That Local 639 was such successor is
established by the circumstances that the Local 89
membership voted to merge with Local 639 in accordance
with applicable union constitutional procedures, that, in
accordance with such action, the merged Local 639
organization acquired possession of Local 89 assets and
assumed its liabilities, that the former Local 89 members
and officers transferred their membership and continued
to pay dues to Local 639, that Local 639 continued to
administer and carry out Local 89's collective agreement
with Respondent, and that Respondent itself recognized
Local 639's representative status by dealing and
negotiating with Local 639 over a substantial period." Cf
Retail Clerks [Montgomery Ward & Co ] v N L R B,
supra, United States Gypsum Company, 164 NLRB No
134; Missouri Service Company, 87 NLRB 1142, Midland
Rubber Corporation, 108 NLRB 930; United Insurance
Company, 132 NLRB 885, 897, reversed on other grounds
304 F 2d 86 (C A 7)
To be sure, amalgamation of the two labor
organizations effected structural changes, including
enlargement of the bargaining representative and
substitution of officers However, such organizational
changes, without more, do not operate to alter the
representative character of the bargaining agent so as to
preclude a transfer of its bargaining rights to another
labor organization, especially one with which it voluntarily
merges Union consolidations and mergers are not unusual
- as with employers. Employees, seeking to secure more
effective and economical representation, may combine to
form a larger and more potent labor organization The
test of survival of bargaining obligation in each case is
whether the successor organization continues to constitute,
"I do not credit Company President Franta' s testimony that he was
unaware of the merger and that he did not know until the March 12, 1967,
bargaining session that Vitti was acting for Local 639 Franta ' s testimony
on this point is vague , evasive, and confusing Moreover , the objective
evidence establishes that beginning with January 1967 (when Vitti made his
first request to negotiate a new contract to replace the 1964 agreement
with Local 89), Franta regularly corresponded with Vitti as business
representative of Local 639, that in his May 17, 1967, letter to the
Regional Director opposing Local 639's petition for an election in a
multiemployer unit, Franta expressly stated that he recognized Local 639
as his employees ' bargaining agent, that in response to Vitti' s June 13,
1967, request to discuss changes in the 1964 Local 89 contract , Franta
proposed substantial wage increases in return for a 3-year extension of that
contract by Local 639 , and that in his February 22, 1968 , answer to the
Union ' s renewed bargaining request, Franta invited Vitti to present
contract proposals Furthermore, although not specifically notified of the
merger in writing , Franta conceded that he learned of it from various
sources "within 2 to 3 weeks after it took place" on February 2, 1966,
including his brother (Company Vice President) Thomas, and that for
almost 2 years subsequent to the merger (February 1966 - November
1967), Respondent paid the "dues owing by Mr Thomas J Franta to
Local 639 " Nor, in the circumstances , can I give credence to Franta's
testimony that when he submitted a proposed draft contract to the Union
at the April 5, 1968, meeting, his secretary "inadvertently typed in" Local
639 as the contracting union It is further to be noted that in this Company
draft (article XI) Respondent proposed a clause that the Local 639 label
"shall be affixed to all work done by members of the Union"
CANTON SIGN CO. 909
in the words of the statute , the "representative [ s] of their
own choosing " (Section 7 of the Act. ) The industrial
stability sought by the Act would unnecessarily be
disrupted if every union organizational adjustment were to
result in displacement of the employer - bargaining
representative relationship Indeed, changes of this type,
consistent with established union procedures - whether it
be enlargem e nt of organizational jurisdiction , new and
additional officers , new affiliation , or merger - would
appear to be contemplated by, rather than in derogation
of, the employees ' right to be represented by a union of
their own choice Furthermore , by specifically authorizing
labor organizations to prescribe their own rules on
admission to and retention of union membership ( Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act), Congress necessarily vested in
unions ( both in their own right and in their character as
representative of employees ) a large measure of discretion
in the management of their internal affairs . Moreover,
here the merged union ( Local 639 ) represents exactly the
same unit of employees which former Local 89
represented , irrespective of the enlarged scope of Local
639. All that is involved here is a merger of two sister
locals under one International in order to obtain more
effective representation in dealing with employers
Respondent has shown nothing prejudicial to its legitimate
interests . Cf. N L R B . v. National Mineral Co , 134 F.2d
424, 426-427 (C. A. 7), N L R B. v S H Kress and Co ,
194 F 2d 444 , 445 (C A. 6) 20
In any event , assuming arguendo , that Local 639 was a
new union ( not legal successor to Local 89 ) and that, as
such, that it could not rely upon the majority status of
Local 89 to establish its own bargaining rights, it is clear
that Local 639 represented a majority of Respondent's
employees and that Respondent was fully aware of Local
639's majority standing and had fully regarded it as
bargaining representative until April 19, 1968 , when it
about-faced and declined to further recognize and bargain
with Local 639. The undisputed evidence establishes that
all of Respondent ' s five employees in the bargaining unit
were dues -paying members of Local 639.21 All five
responded to Local 639's April 8, 1968 , strike call and all
participated in the strike Under these circumstances, and
contention that Respondent "was in doubt as to the
union ' s representing a majority of employees is little short
of absurd in view of the fact that practically all of the
employees went out on strike in an attempt to compel the
company to bargain with the union ." N.L R B v.
Harris- Woodson Co., Inc, 179 F .2d 720, 723 (C A 4) 22
Respondent ' s additional contention that it was relieved
of the duty to bargain with Local 639 because , as it told
"Dickey v N L R B., 217 F 2d 652 (C A 6 ), is distinguishable and not
controlling In holding that the merged organization in that case was not
entitled to succeed to the certification of the certified merging union, the
Court there stressed that the question of merger was never submitted to a
membership vote ( id at 653-654 ). The Court said (at 655) "The vote of
the employees is the decisive factor in securing 'that freedom of choice
which is the essence of collective bargaining ' I A of M v N L R B , 311
U S 72, 79 The employees had a basic statutory right to express their
choice It was expressed in favor of the Blacksmiths [the certified union]
but not in favor of the Boilermakers [the merged union] " See Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO [Montgomery Ward & Co / v
N L.R B., 373 F 2d 655, 657 (C A D C ), which distinguishes Dickey See
also Safway Steel Scaffolds Company of Georgia , 173 NLRB No 52
"One of these , Thomas Franta , was delinquent in dues but remained a
member through May 1968 (supra, In 8)
"To the same effect. N L R B v. Tavel and Son, 261 F.2d I, 4 (C A. 7),
N.L.R.B . v. William S. Shurett , d/b/a Greyhound Terminal , 314 F 2d 43,
44 (C A 5), N.L R.B . v Preston Feed Corp ., 309 F 2d 346, 350-351
(C.A. 4)
Business Representative Vitti at the last (April 19, 1968)
meeting , the Union negotiating committee included
employees of other employers , is too tenuous to require
extended discussion . Since Section 7 of the Act grants
employees "the right to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing ," it is clear that,
except in unusual circumstances not here present,23 a
union may have anyone it wishes on its side of the
bargaining table, including persons not employed in the
plant . The employer may neither dictate nor control the
makeup of his employees ' bargaining representative See
The Standard Oil Company, 137 NLRB 690, 710, enfd
322 F 2d 40, 43-45 (C.A 6), N. L.R B. v . Deena Arlware,
Inc., 198 F.2d 645, 650-651 (C A. 6). "To select one's own
representative or agent is a natural right and the statue
accords it in express terms " N L.R B v Roscoe
Skipper , Inc, 213 F 2d 793, 794 (C A. 5) 24
Accordingly , I conclude that Respondent ' s refusal to
meet and bargain with Local 639 on and after April 19,
1968, was violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act I
find that Respondent ' s defense that it was relieved of its
bargaining obligation because Local 639 was not the
bargaining representative of its employees , was a mere
afterthought , seized upon as a pretext to oust the Union
after the Union resorted to economic pressure (a strike)
on April 8, 1968, to enforce its bargaining objectives
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act
2. Local 89 and Local 639 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees engaged in the following occupations*
designing, lettering, pictorial work, adveitising displays,
neon and plastic advertising, sign erection, painting all
signs and poster boards, screen processing display work,
and sign maintenance of all the above, excluding all
office clerical employees, and all professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act
4. At all times since February 2, 1966, Local 639 has
been and still is the exclusive representative of all the
employees within said appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5 By refusing on and since April 19, 1968, to bargain
with Local 639 as exclusive representative of the
employees in the above-described appropriate unit,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
"See N L R B v Kentucky Utilities Co , 182 F 2d 810, 813 (C A 6),
General Electric Co v N L R B, 388 F 2d 213 (C A 6), Bausch & Lomb
Optical Company, 108 NLRB 1555 Cf N L R B v Signal Manufacturing
Co, 351 F 2d 471 (C A 1)
"Furthermore, it is to be noted that Respondent voiced no objection to
composition of the employee committee at any bargaining session prior to
April 19, 1968 On the contrary, it was stipulated that in the first 1968
bargaining session (March 12) Company President Franta inquired of
Business Representative Vitti as to the whereabouts of a member of the
committee not employed by Respondent, suggesting in effect that this
employee participate in ensuing meetings Vitti promised to produce (and
produced) this employee at the next meeting
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to meet and bargain with Local 639
and its designated agents (including employees not
employed by Respondent) as the exclusive representative
of its employees in an appropriate unit, I will recommend
that Respondent cease and desist from engaging in such
unfair labor practices and, upon request, bargain
collectively with the Union and its designated agents
concerning wages, rates of pay, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, I
recommend that Respondent, Canton Sign Co., of
Canton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Sign Display Pictorial Artists and Allied Workers, Local
639, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators
and Paperhangers of America, AFL-CIO, and its
designated agents (including employees not employed by
Respondent), as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment
All employees employed by the Respondent at its
Canton, Ohio, plant who are engaged in the following
occupations. designing, lettering, pictorial work,
advertising displays, neon and plastic advertising, sign
erection, painting all signs and poster boards, screen
processing display work, and sign maintenance of all
the above, excluding all office clerical employees, and
all professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the
efforts of the above-named labor organization to bargain
collectively on behalf of the employees in the
above-described unit
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, meet and bargain with the
above-named labor organization, and its designated agents
(including employees not employed by Respondent), as the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
(b) Post at its place of business in Canton, Ohio, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix "" Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith. E6
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"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 ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence , it has been decided that we, Canton Sign Co.,
violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and we have been ordered to post this notice.
Among the rights which the National Labor Relations
Act gives you , as an employee , is the right to bargain
collectively through a representative of your own
choosing Accordingly , we hereby assure you that.
WE WILL, upon request, meet and bargain
collectively with Sign Display Pictorial Artists and
Allied Workers, Local 639, affiliated with Brotherhood
of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
AFL-CIO , and its designated agents, as your exclusive
representative . The bargaining unit is
All employees engaged in the following occupations.
designing , lettering , pictorial work, advertising
displays, neon and plastic advertising , sign erection,
painting all signs and poster boards , screen processing
display work , and sign maintenance of all the above,
excluding all office clerical employees , and all
professional employees , guards and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the
above-named Union because its negotiating committee
may be constituted , in part , of employees of other
employers.
CANTON SIGN CO.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, Federal Office
Building, Room 1695, 1240 East 9th Street , Cleveland,
Ohio 44199, Telephone 216-522-3715