Cavalier Olds, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 490 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cavalier Olds , Inc. and Tom Farabaugh Company
and Godard VonGunten Sales, Inc. and Burt
Greenwald Chevrolet , Inc. and Lyle Chevrolet Co.
and Meech Pontiac, Inc. and Summit Buick, Inc.
and Wallace Oldsmobile, Inc. and Professional
Automobile Salesmen Union , Local 436, affiliated
with Office and Professional Employees
International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases 8-CA-5194,
8-CA-5196. 8-CA-5197, 8-CA-5198. 8-CA-5199,
8-CA-5200. 8-CA-5202, and 8-CA-5204
September 18, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 17, 1969, Trial Examiner Fannie M.
Boyls issued her Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
the Respondents cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiners Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, 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 this 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
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondents. Cavalier Olds,
Inc., and Summit Buick, Inc., both of Akron, Ohio;
Toni Farabaugh Company, Meech Pontiac, Inc.,
and Burt Greenwald Chevrolet, Inc , of Barberton,
Ohio; Lyle Chevrolet Co , and Wallace Oldsmobile,
Inc.. of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio; and Godard
VonGunten Sales. Inc., Tallmadge, Ohio, their
officers, agents, successors. and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
TRIAL FXAMINER'S DECISION
STATrMFNT OF IIIP CASF
FANNIE M. Boyi.s, Trial Examiner. These consolidated
cases were tried before me at Akron, Ohio, on April I.
1969. The complaint against each Respondent, issued on
February 5, 1969 pursuant to charges and amended
charges filed on October 30, 1968, and January 22. 1969,
alleged that it had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with
the labor organization certified by the Board as the
bargaining representative of its employees. Each
Respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in
the unfair labor practice alleged. After the conclusion of
the hearing counsel for the General Counsel filed a helpful
brief Counsel for Respondents filed none.
Upon the entire record, upon my observation of the
sole witness. and upon a consideration of the General
Counsel's brief. I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THr BUSINESS OF RFSPONDENTS
As alleged in the complaints and admitted in the
answers, each Respondent is an Ohio corporation,
engaged in Ohio in the retail sale of new and/or used
automobiles Each annually, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, derives in excess of S500,000 in
gross receipts from the retail sale of automobiles and each
annually receives at its place of business in Ohio, directly
from points outside the State, products valued in excess of
$50,000. On the basis of these admitted facts, it is found
that each Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein
11. THP LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI VED
Professional Automobile Salesmen Association, herein
called PASA, was certified by the Board as the collective
bargaining representative of each of Respondents'
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit at various
times in August, October or November 1967 1 find that
at all times material herein it was a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
On October 9. 1968, the Board amended the
certification of PASA, in each of the representation cases
in which that labor organization had been certified as
representative of each of Respondents' employees, to
reflect that Professional Automobile Salesmen Union,
Local 436, Affiliated with Office and Professional
Employees International Union. AFL-CIO. herein called
Local 436, was a continuation of and successor to PASA.
I find that Local 436 is now and has been at all times
material herein a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Except where necessary hereinafter to distinuish
between PASA and Local 436, they will be treated as' one
and the same labor organization and will he referred to as
the Union
11I. IIII UNFAIR LABOR PR&CTiCES
A The Issues Posed
Each Respondent admits that it has refused to bargain
and continues to refuse to bargain with the Union as the
178NLRB No.79
CAVALIER OLDS, INC. 491
representative of its employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit consisting of the new and used car
salesmen, licensed by the State of Ohio and employed by
each Respondent. Each, however, defends its refusal on
the following grounds. It asserts that on June 3. 1968, the
first date on which Respondents are alleged in the
complaint to have refused to bargain with PASA, PASA
was defunct and no longer existed as a labor organization.
It further asserts that the Board's later amendment of
certifications on October 9, 1968 to reflect Local 436 as
the bargaining representative of each of Respondents'
employees is invalid and of no effect. It denies that Local
436 is the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of any of the Respondents here involved.
The General Counsel, on the other hand, contends that
PASA and Local 436 are one and the same labor
organization and that Respondent unlawfully refused to
bargain with that labor organization when it was called
PASA as well as when it was called Local 436.
The subsidiary facts pertinent to the issues thus
presented are now set forth.
B. Events Leading to Amended Certification on
October 9, 1968
1. Early ineffectual attempts of PASA to affiliate
with OPEIU and have its certifications amended
PASA was certified as the bargaining representative of'
the salesmen employed by Meech Pontiac, Inc., on August
8, 1967, of those employed by Wallace Oldsmobile, Inc.
on November 28, 1967 and of those employed by each of
the other Respondents on October 26, 1967. Early
attempts of PASA to affiliate with Office and
Professional Employees Union, AFL-CIO, herein called
OPEIU, are described in detail in the Regional Director's
Decision and Order of April 24, 1968, dismissing petitions
by Local 436 to amend the certifications of PASA as
bargaining representative of employees at each
Respondent These facts arc briefly summarized below.
As early as September or October 1967 there were
discussions at PASA membership meetings about the
desirability of affiliating with some international union.
Upon the first occasion when a vote was taken as to
whether PASA should affiliate with OPEIU. the proposal
was rejected. However, at another membership meeting
held on January 9, 1968. and called for the purpose of
voting on the question of affiliation with OPEIU, a
majority of those voting approved affiliation. Notice of
this meeting, however, was given to members only by
word of mouth or telenhone and only 40 to 50 out of a
total of 326 members attended the meeting. They voted
unanimously by show of hands to affiliate ' PASA's
Business Manager Kenneth Ciarcia. then applied to
OPEIU for a local charter and PASA was issued a
charter on January 22, 1968 as Local 436.
As a result of questions arising as to the adequacy of
notice to members and the conduct of the affiliation vote
itself at the January 9 meeting. PASA's board of directors
decided that a new affiliation vote should be taken. On
March 4. 1968, letters were mailed to all salesmen who
had signed PASA authorization cards, informing them
that a three part resolution would be voted upon by secret
'The figure 326 was the total of all who had ever signed an authorization
card for PASA in either the Cleveland or Akron areas. whether still
employed in the industry or not The Respondents here involved are
located in the greater Akron area.
ballot on March 13, 1968. Part I of the resolution
provided that PASA be dissolved and that members of
PASA become members of Local 436: Part II provided
that all Board certifications and pending petitions,
together with all assets and liabilities of PASA be
transferred to Local 436; and Part III provided that
PASA's constitution, bylaws and procedures be continued
by Local 436 and submitted to OPEIU for its approval.
The balloting which followed was conducted by PASA's
Business Manager Ciarcia and other PASA officers Each
person who appeared to vote at the appointed polling
places merely signed his name and address on a sheet of
paper without indicating what automobile dealer he
worked for or, indeed, whether he worked as a salesman
at all He was given a small sheet of paper on which he
was instructed to vote "yes" or "no." Only 18 persons,
including Ciarcia (who was not employed by any
automobile dealer) voted. All voted "yes" and this was
construed as a unanimous vote for affiliation.
Following the March 13 balloting all assets of PASA
were transferred to Local 436. The same individuals who
held offices with PASA, with the exception of one who
resigned from PASA, have continued as officers of Local
436. The latter occupies the same offices and has the same
telephone number as that previously used by PASA.
Following the affiliation vote, Local 436 filed with the
Regional Director of the Board petitions, in Cases
8-AC-26 through 40. to have the certifications amended to
reflect the change in name and affiliation. A hearing on
those petitions was held on March 29, 1968. The
Respondents in the consolidated cases before me are only
8 of the 15 employers involved in Cases 8-AC-26 through
40. A transcript of the hearing in the latter proceeding
was received in evidence at this hearing.
On April 24, 1968, the Regional Director issued his
Decision and Order dismissing the petitions, finding on
the basis of the facts recited therein. greatly condensed
here, that a serious question existed concerning whether
the affiliation of PASA with OPEIU truly reflected the
wishes of a majority of the members of PASA or of the
employees in the units in which amendments of the
certification were sought
2. Further attempts to perfect affiliation and have
certifications amended
After receiving the Regional Director's April 24
Decision, the Union, continuing to act through its same
officials, took renewed steps to perfect the affiliation in
such a manner as it believed would result in an
amendment of the certifications. These steps, which are
summarized below. are set forth in detail in the Regional
Director's Decision and Order amending certifications
issued on October 9, 1968, and received in evidence in this
proceeding
A membership meeting, pursuant to letters of notice
sent to approximately 139 individuals in the greater Akron
area in which all of Respondents are located, was held on
July 9, 1968. At this meeting affiliation with OPEIU was
again discussed. It was decided by those attending to hold
another meeting on July 30 to further discuss affiliation
and to take a vote on the matter. Following another letter
to the approximately 139 individuals, in which the purpose
of the July 30 meeting was announced, a meeting was held
and a vote was taken. The balloting was conducted under
the supervision of a priest from a local Roman Catholic
Church. Each voter was required to sign a registration
sheet showing his name and the name of the automobile
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agency for whom he worked. He was given a ballot on
which was printed the question whether he wished "to
affiliate with the Professional Automobile Salesmen
Union, Local 436, who is affiliated with the Office and
Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO"
and was instructed to mark an "X" in either the "yes" or
"no" box to express his preference. Of the 51 votes cast,
49 voted for affiliation
Following- this vote Local 436 again filed petitions to
amend certifications. These petitions, in Cases Nos.
8-AC-55 through 64, involved each of the 8 Respondents
here involved and two other employers. A hearing on
these petitions was held on September 24, 1968 On the
basis of the evidence adduced at that hearing which is only
briefly summarized in the preceding paragraph, the
Regional Director found that Local 436 "is. in reality, a
continuation of PASA which was certified in the original
representation cases" and "is the successor of PASA as
the representative of the employees involved here." He
accordingly granted the petitions to amend the
certifications by substituting "Professional Automobile
Salesmen Union. Local 436, affiliated with Office and
Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO"
for "Professional Automobile Salesmen Association" as
the name of the Union certified as bargaining
representative for the salesmen working for each
Respondent.
Respondents and the two other employers affected by
the amended certifications, acting through their attorney,
Edward C Kaminski, filed with the Board a request for
review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order. The
Board, on November 7, 1968, denied the request for
review on the ground that it raised no substantial issues
warranting review. The Trial Examiner is accordingly
bound by the Decision and Order of the Regional Director
amending the certifications.
C. The Refusals To Bargain
On January 26, 1968, Ken Ciarcia, business manager of
PASA (who continued in the same capacity with Local
436), wrote each Respondent, on PASA's letterhead, that
members of PASA were signing membership cards for
Local 436, affiliated with OPEIU, but that this action
would not disturb the bargaining relationship with
Respondents established by the Board's certifications. He
promised to forward copies of the Union's proposed
agreement in the near future. He did, in person, deliver
copies of the proposed contract to each of the
Respondents within 3 or 4 days thereafter.
In a letter dated February 2, 1968, each Respondent.
through its attorney, Kaminski, replied that PASA was
the certified bargaining representative and that
Respondents would not recognize or bargain with Local
436.
On February 15, 1968, Ciarcia (this time on a
letterhead of Local 436), wrote each Respondent that
PASA and Local 436 were "one and the same," and
requested a meeting to start negotiations on the proposed
agreement.
Kaminski, on behalf of each Respondent, replied by a
letter to Ciarcia dated February 20. He reiterated the
position stated by him in his February 2 letter and
requested that all future communications be sent to him
as labor relations counsel for each of the Respondents -
'Following the receipt of this letter, Ciarcta , as the Union ' s business
manager, filed with the Regional Office of the Board refusal-to-bargain
On May 23 or 27, 1968, following the initial denial by
the Regional Director of PASA's petition to amend the
certifications, and after consulting counsel, Ciarcia, as
"business manager" again wrote each Respondent (this
time on blank stationery), with a copy of his letter to
Kaminski, stating that PASA, "assisted by" Local 436,
desired to meet with each Respondent for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement.
Kaminski, as labor relations counsel for each
Respondent, replied on June 3. 1968. He stated that he
regarded Ciarcia's letters as efforts of Local 436 to go
around the Board's denial of the petitions to amend the
certifications "and assume the bargaining rights of the
defunct" PASA. He stated that each Respondent would
accordingly refuse the demand for bargaining made in the
May 23 and 27 letters.
On October 19, 1968, following further steps to perfect
affiliation and the Board's amendment of the certifications
on October 9 (which have been described in the preceding
section of this Decision), Business Representative Ciarcia
again wrote each Respondent, with a copy of the letter to
Kaminski, requesting a meeting with each Respondent,
before October 29 if possible, for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement with Local 436.
Receiving no response to these letters, the Union filed
refusal-to-bargain charges with the Board on October 30,
1968. On or about November 7, 1968, Respondents
Cavalier Olds, Inc.. Lyle Chevrolet Co. and Burt
Greenwald Chevrolet, Inc., each filed a petition
(8-RM-546, 8-RM-545 and 8-RM-547) with the Regional
Director questioning the continued representative status of
the Union among its employees and requesting the
Union's decertification Each of these petitions was
dismissed on the ground that the refusal-to-bargain
charges filed against each Respondent on October 30 were
still pending.'
On November 26, 1968, Kaminski, as counsel for each
of the Respondents, wrote the Regional Office of the
Board, explaining the position of each Respondent with
respect to the refusal-to-bargain charge which had been
filed against it. He stated this position to be:
It is the position of the Employers that they are not
obligated to bargain with the Charging Party, PASU
Local 436. The certified bargaining agent is the now
defunct PASA and the Employers doubt that the
Charging Party represents the majority of the salesmen
working for each Employer. The Employers maintain
that they are not obligated to bargain with PASU Local
436.
On behalf of the Respondents Cavalier Olds, Inc., Lyle
Chevrolet Company and Burt Greenwald Chevrolet, Inc.,
Kaminski wrote separate letters explaining that each had
charges as well as petitions to amend the certifications On advice of a
Board agent, however, he withdrew the charges and proceeded merely with
the petitions to amend the certifications . These petitions , as already shown,
were dismissed by the Regional Director on April 24, 1968
'The charges filed on October 30 alleged that each Respondent had
refused to bargain with Local 436 since on or about October 22, 1968
Amended charges were filed on January 22, 1969, alleging , in addition,
that each Respondent had refused to bargain with PASA on or about June
3, 1968 Because Sec 10(b) of the statute precludes the issuance of a
complaint based on unfair labor practices occurring more that 6 months
before the filing of a charge, the complaint does not encompass refusals of
the Respondents to bargain prior to June 3, 1968. The alleged refusals to
bargain on June 3, 1968, being within 6 months of the original charge, are
not barred under Section 10(b) Cooper Thermometer Company, 160
NLRB 1902, 1915. Kansas Milling Co v NLRB B. 185 F 2d 413, 415
(C A 10)
CAVALIER OLDS, INC.
filed a decertification petition because of a doubt of the
Union's majority status based on the fact that none or less
than a majority of its employees had attended the July 30.
1968, meeting at which the last affiliation vote was taken.
I find no merit in these defenses asserted by
Respondents. As already indicated, Local 436 is merely a
continuation of and successor to PASA Lach must be
treated as one and the same labor organization. At the
outset, therefore, Respondent's contention that PASA
became defunct when it made an ineffectual attempt in
March 1968 to dissolie and transfer its affiliation and
certification to Local 436 must be rejected Respondents
cannot have their cake and cat it too. If the "yes" votes
on the three part resolution voted on be counted as validly
effecting a dissolution of PASA, as Respondents
apparently contend, then they must also be considered as
validly effecting the affiliation with Local 436 and the
transfer of the certifications to the latter Union The
intention of the ollicers and members of PASA was clear.
They were voting on whether their labor organization
certified by the Board should deal with the employers as a
local of an international union, namely the OPEIU, or
remain an independent union. The voter's choice was one
"yes" or "no" vote on the entire resolution, not on any
single part of the three part resolution. If their vote in
March was ineffective, as the Board found, to accomplish
a valid affiliation with and transfer of PASA's
certification to Local 436, it was also ineffective to
accomplish a dissolution of PASA.
Within the 6 month period preceding the filing of the
October 30, 1968 charges. the Union. while acting under
the name of PASA as well as acting under the name of
Local 436, requested each Respondent to bargain with it
and each Respondent refused and has continued to refuse
to bargain. Since, as I have found, Local 436 is merely a
continuation and successor of PASA, both are to be
regarded as one and the same labor organization and it is
unnecessary for purposes of this proceeding, to determine
whether a refusal to bargain at any given time was with
PASA or with Local 436. These refusals, 1 find, were in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act whether the
requests were made in the name of PASA "assisted by"
Local 436, as were the May 23 and 27 requests, or in the
name of Local 436, as were the October 19 requests.
General Electric Company, 173 NLRB No. 46
It would be no defense to these refusals to bargain even
if a majority of the employees in the appropriate units no
longer desired the Union to represent them, for a
bargaining relationship once established must be given a
fair chance to succeed before the majority status may
successfully be challenged. All of these Respondents had
refused to bargain with the Union within the certification
year. As the Supreme Court ruled in Ray Brooks v.
N L R B . 348 U.S. 96. even in the absence of employer
unfair labor practices which might contribute to a loss of
the majority, there normally is an irrebuttablc
presumption as to the Union's continuing majority status
within the certification year.' Here, each Respondent had
unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union during the
certification year and dimunition in Union support. if any
occurred, must be attributed to Respondents' unfair labor
practices. To remedy these refusals to bargain, each
Respondent must now he required to bargain with the
Union. Franks Brothers Company v. N L.R.B., 321 U.S
702.
'Moreover , even after the certiiication year the presumption of majority
status continues and may be rebutted only by evidence furnishing a
CON( LUSIONS OF LAW
493
I The following employees of each Respondent
constitute separate appropriate bargaining units within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All new and used car salesmen, licensed by the State of
Ohio, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, irregular part-time salesmen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act
2. The Union, whether acting in the name of PASA or
in the name of Local 436, has at all times since its
certifications in 1967 been the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the aforesaid units for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment and other terms and conditions of
employment
3 By refusing on and after June 3, 1968. to bargain
collectively with the Union, each Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Ttir. REMI DY
It having been found that each Respondent has engaged
in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will
require that each Respondent cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act Since the Union's certifications
were amended on October 9, 1968 to reflect that Local
436 is the correct name of the bargaining representative of
the salesmen of each Respondent, my Recommended
Order will require that each Respondent, upon request,
shall bargain with Local 436.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record in these consolidated cases,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that each
of the Respondents, Cavalier Olds, Inc.. Tom 1-arabaugh
Company, Godard VonGunten Sales. Inc , Burt
Greenywald Chevrolet, Inc , Lyle Chevrolet Co., Meech
Pontiac, Inc.. Summit Buick, Inc. and Wallace
Oldsmobile, Inc.. their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to bargain with Professional Automobile
Salesmen Union. Local 436. Affiliated with Office and
Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All new and used car salesmen, Licensed by the State of
Ohio. excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, irregular part-time salesmen, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act
reasonable basis for doubt as to the continuing status, a type of evidence
not presented by any of the Respondents here involved Celanese
Corporation of America , 95 NLRB 664, n' L R B v . Gulfmont Hotel
Company, 362 1. 2d 588 (C.A 5)
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above
named Union as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the unit described above concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at their respective dealerships copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix"' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of each Respondent, be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it thereafter for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where, notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by each Respondent to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Notify ' the Regional Director for Region 8. in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply with the terms
hereof.'
'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 A r_f. EMPLOY12ES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to eflectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that-
W'F WILL No-1 refuse to bargain collectively with
Professional Automobile Salesmen Union, Local 436,
affiliated with Office and Professional Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO as exclusive
representative of our employees in the following
appropriate unit
All new and used car salesmen, licensed by the State
of Ohio, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, irregular part- time salesmen,
guards and supervisors as del' ined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the
aforesaid union and will embody any understanding
reached in a signed agreement.
WF WILI NOT by refusing to bargain with the
aforesaid labor organization or in any like or related
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights under the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
I his 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, 1695 Federal
Office Building, 1240 East 9th Street, Cleveland, Ohio
44199, Telephone 522-3715.