Distributing Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 322 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SDS Distributing Corporation and Q-M Distributing
Corporation, Its Successor and Alter Ego and Brew-
ery Delivery Employees Local Union 46, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and Local 807,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Party in Interest. Cases 29-CA 6207 and 29 CA-
6314
September 25, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
Upon charges filed on February 10 and April 6,
1978, by the Brewery Delivery Employees Local
Union 46, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called Local 46, and duly served on SDS Dis-
tributing Corporation and Q-M Distributing Corpo-
ration, its Successor and Alter Ego, herein called Re-
spondents, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 29, issued a consolidated complaint on April
11, 1978, against Respondents, alleging that Respon-
dents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(aX 1), (2), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice
of hearing before an administrative law judge were
duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint, as consolidated, alleges in substance that on
January 31, 1978, Respondents discharged all of their
employees in violation of an existing collective-bar-
gaining agreement, refused reinstatement to such em-
ployees, hired other employees to perform the former
employees' work, and recognized a rival union as the
bargaining representative of such other employees. It
further alleges that on or about January 31, 1978,'
Respondents refused, and continue to date to refuse,
to bargain collectively with Local 46 as the exclusive
bargaining representative, although Local 46 has re-
quested and is requesting it to do so. It additionally
alleged that since on or about February 1, 1978, Re-
spondents have refused to honor or give effect to its
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 46, has
unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of
work of its employees, and has engaged in individual
I The complaint inadvertently sets the date of January 13, 1978. which, as
is clear from the other allegations in the complaint. should read January 31.,
1978.
bargaining. Finally, the complaint alleges that Re-
spondents, by engaging in the foregoing conduct, vio-
lated the Act as set forth above.
On July 26, 1978, Respondents' president, being
advised by registered mail of pending summary judg-
ment proceedings, telephoned the counsel for the
General Counsel stating that no answer to the com-
plaint would be filed on behalf of Respondents, nor
would any appearance be made at the hearing then
scheduled for August 14, 1978. Thereafter, counsel
for the General Counsel advised Respondents by let-
ter of his intention to move for summary judgment
and on November 27, 1978, he filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment directly with the Board based on
Respondents' failure to file a timely answer under
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
On December 11, 1978, the Board issued an order
transferring the matter to the Board and a Notice To
Show Cause why the Motion for Summary Judgment
should not be granted, stating therein that Respon-
dents should file their response in writing with the
Board by December 26, 1978. No response was
timely filed. However, the Board received a letter
from Respondents on December 27, 1978. advising
that "we categorically deny all the charges made by
Local 46 and want our day in court to examine the
people making the charges." There was no affidavit of
service showing service on the parties and no other
indication that such service was made.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the com-
plaint, unless the respondent is without knowl-
edge, in which case the respondent shall so state.
such statement operating as a denial. All allega-
tions in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or
any allegation in the complaint not specifically
denied or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be admit-
ted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
245 NLRB No. 46
322
SDS DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION
The complaint specifically stated that unless an an-
swer was filed within 10 days of service thereof "all of
the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed to be
admitted to be true and may be so found by the
Board." Also, as outlined above, the General Coun-
sel, according to the uncontroverted allegations of the
Motion for Summary Judgment, notified Respon-
dents on more than one occasion that their answer
was overdue and that he intended to move for sum-
mary judgment based on the allegations of the com-
plaint. In reply Respondents stated that they did not
intend to file an answer and they also failed to file a
timely response to the Notice To Show Cause. How-
ever, Respondents by letter dated December 27, 1978.
generally denied "all charges made by Local 46" and
stated that they wanted a "day in court to examine
the people making the charges." Insofar as the letter
purports to be an answer to the complaint, it fails in
its purpose in that it lacks the required specificity,
was not timely filed, and was not properly served on
the parties to this proceeding. Insofar as it purports to
be a response to the Notice To Show Cause, it also
fails in its purpose not only because it was not timely
filed nor duly served, but also because it does not
even attempt to explain or justify or proffer an excuse
for the failure to file a proper and timely answer to
the complaint and because it fails to establish any
sound reason why the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment should not be granted. As Respondents have
not filed a timely proper answer and have not estab-
lished "good cause" under Section 102.20 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations as to why the allega-
tions of the complaint should not be deemed admit-
ted, we find as true all such allegations and grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Respondents SDS and Q-M are New York corpo-
rations engaged in the sale and distribution of beer
and related products. During the prior year, Respon-
dents have severally, in the course and conduct of
their business, purchased and caused to be trans-
ported and delivered in interstate commerce beer and
other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
directly from States of the United States other than
the State in which they are located.
At all times material herein, Elmer Sidden has been
the president of Respondents acting on their behalf
and as an agent thereof. Until January 31, 1978, Re-
spondent SDS maintained its facility at 34 Forrest
Street, Brooklyn, New York; and since February 1.,
1978, Respondent Q-M has maintained its place of
business at 420 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn. New York.
On or about November 26. 1976, Rheingold Brewer-
ies, Inc.. sold and transferred the business of the sale
and distribution of its products to Respondent SDS
which thereafter hired Rheingold employees as its
own, in the unit found appropriate herein, and as-
sumed the collective-bargaining agreement between
Rheingold and Local 46 covering said employees. On
January 31, 1978, Respondent SDS closed its facility
and transferred its delivery operation, equipment.
and supervisors to Respondent Q-M. Since February
1, 1978, the delivery employees of Respondent Q-M
have performed substantially the same work as had
been performed by the delivery employees of Respon-
dent SDS, using equipment the latter had and being
supervised by the same supervisors previously em-
ployed by Respondent SDS. At all times material
herein, Respondents have had common ownership,
directors, and operators, with the operators formulat-
ing and administering the labor policy for both com-
panies. Accordingly, we find that Respondent Q-M is,
and has been, the successor to and alter ego of Re-
spondent SDS.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dents, and each of them, are and have been at all
times material herein 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.
II. HE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Brewery Delivery Employees Local Union 46 and
Local 807, both affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
A. The 8(a)(5) and (1) Violations
I. The unit and Local 46's representative status
At all times material, Local 46, by virtue of Section
9(a) of the Act, has been the exclusive representative
for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act of all the employees in
the following appropriate unit: all drivers, helpers,
warehousemen, beer plumbers and clerks employed
by Respondents at the Forrest Street plant and then
at the Kent Avenue plant, exclusive of all officials of
Respondents, office clerical employees, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
On or about January 17. 1977. Respondent SDS
323
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreed to and did assume the collective-bargaining
agreement covering employees in the appropriate unit
between Rheingold Breweries, Inc., a predecessor,
and Local 46, said contract to run until May 31, 1978.
and further agreed to and did continue to employ the
employees of Rheingold covered by the said collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. At all times material Lo-
cal 46 has requested Respondents to honor and give
effect to the aforesaid collective-bargaining agree-
ment and recognize and bargain with it as the exclu-
sive representative of Respondent Q-M's employees
in the appropriate unit concerning rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment of such employees.
2. Refusals to bargain
Commencing on or about January 31, 1978, and
continuing at all times thereafter, Respondents have
refused to recognize and bargain with Local 46 as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and have refused to honor and give
effect to the collective-bargaining agreement, which
they adopted, covering the employees in said unit. On
or about February 1, 1978, and at all times thereafter,
Respondents have unilaterally changed existing wage
rates, hours of employment, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment of employees in the appropri-
ate unit without prior notice to Local 46 and without
having afforded that Union an opportunity to negoti-
ate and bargain concerning such changes. Respon-
dents also have bargained directly and individually
with the employees in said unit with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
Accordingly, we find that Respondents have since
January 31, 1978, and at all times thereafter, includ-
ing February 1, 1978, refused to bargain collectively
with Local 46 as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit in the manner set
forth above, and that, by such refusals, Respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
B. The 8(a)(2) and (1) Violations
On or about March 2, 1978, Respondent Q-M rec-
ognized Local 807 as the representative of all the de-
livery employees at the Kent Avenue plant when at
times relevant Local 46 was the exclusive bargaining
representative of such employees and when such em-
ployees were part of the appropriate unit covered by
the outstanding bargaining agreement between Re-
spondents and Local 46. Accordingly, we find that,
by recognizing Local 807 at a time when they were
obligated to recognize and bargain with Local 46 as
the exclusive representative of their employees, Re-
spondents have unlawfully rendered and are render-
ing assistance to Local 807 and are contributing un-
lawful financial and other assistance to the Union.
and that, by such conduct, Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and () of the
Act.
C. The 8(a)(3) and (1) Violations
On or about January 31, 1978, Respondent SDS
discharged all employees employed in the appropriate
unit. At all times thereafter Respondents have failed
and refused to reinstate, or offer to reinstate, said em-
ployees to their former or substantially equivalent po-
sitions, notwithstanding that in January and Febru-
ary 1978 Respondents hired other employees to fill
such positions. The employees of Respondent SDS
were discharged and denied reinstatement because
they were members of and represented by Local 46
and for the purpose of Respondent SDS to avoid
dealing with Local 46.
Accordingly, we find that, by discharging and re-
fusing to reinstate the employees of Respondent SDS,
Respondents have discriminated against their em-
ployees in regard to their terms and conditions of em-
ployment, and that, by such conduct, Respondents
have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACI(CES
UPON OMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section
111, above, occurring in connection with their opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act,
we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.2 Thus, we shall order
In his Motion for Summary Judgment. counsel for the General Counsel
implies that Respondents have closed or relocated their business and thus
requests that the various affirmative provisions of the complaint be made
324
SDS DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION
them to (I) recognize and bargain with Local 46 for
employees in the appropriate unit at their Kent Street
location; (2) honor and give effect to their bargaining
agreement with Local 46 covering the employees in
the appropriate unit; (3) offer to the discriminatees
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if such jobs are no longer available, to substan-
tially equivalent jobs at their Kent Avenue location;
(4) pay backpay to the discriminatees for any losses
resulting from the discrimination against them from
the date of their unlawful discharge to the date Re-
spondents offer them full and proper reinstatement;
and (5) pay to the appropriate Local 46 plan any and
all amounts due in pension, health, welfare, or vaca-
tion benefits which are due and owing for all unit
employees from the date of their discharge to the date
Respondents offer them reinstatement, to the extent
that such contributions have not been made. Backpay
shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and inter-
est shall be paid on all backpay as prescribed in Flor-
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see gen-
erally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962). Contributions owing Local 46 employee bene-
fit plans shall be computed in the manner set forth in
Merryweather Optical Company, 240 NLRB 1213
(1979). Finally, we shall order Respondents to mail to
each employee employed by them in the appropriate
unit during 1978 a copy of the notice attached hereto
as an appendix.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents SDS Distributing Corporation and
Q-M Distributing Corporation are employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Q-M Distributing Corporation is,
and has been, the successor to and alter ego of Re-
spondent SDS Distributing Corporation.
3. Brewery Delivery Employees Local Union 46
and Local 807, both affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, beer plumb-
ers, and clerks employed by Respondents at the For-
est Street plant and then at the Kent Avenue plant,
applicable to any location to which Respondents have moved their business
or to any location where they may reopen their business. However, there are
no facts before us warranting our departing from the customary remedial
provisions, and thus the matter raised by the General Counsel can best be
resolved at the compliance stage of this proceeding.
exclusive of all officials of Respondents, office clerical
employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective-bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. At all times material herein, Local 46 has been,
and is now, the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the unit described above for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
6. By refusing on or about January 31, 1978, and
thereafter by continuing to refuse to recognize and
bargain with Local 46 as the exclusive representative
of their employees in the appropriate unit: by failing
to honor and give effect to its bargaining agreement
with Local 46 on and after January 31, 1978: by mak-
ing unilateral changes on or about February 1, 1978,
and thereafter, in the rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit; and by bargaining
directly and individually with the employees in said
unit concerning those matters, Respondents have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
7. By on or about January 31, 1978, and thereafter,
discharging and failing or refusing to reinstate Re-
spondent SDS Distributing Corporation's employees
because of their membership in and representation by
Local 46 and, in order to avoid recognizing and deal-
ing with that union, Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
8. By recognizing on or about March 2, 1978. Lo-
cal 807 as the bargaining representative of Respon-
dent Q-M Distributing Corporation's delivery em-
ployees at a time when such employees were
represented by Local 46 (as the exclusive bargaining
representative in the appropriate unit), and by assist-
ing and contributing financial and other support to
Local 807, Respondents have engaged in and are en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
9. By the aforesaid violations described in para-
graphs 6, 7, and 8 above, Respondents have interfered
with, restrained, and coerced, and are interfering
with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby have engaged in, and are engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(l) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
325
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondents, SDS
Distributing Corporation and Q-M Distributing Cor-
poration, Brooklyn, New York, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively
with Brewery Delivery Employees Local 46, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of their employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, beer plumb-
ers and clerks employed by the Respondents at
the Forrest Street plant and then at the Kent
Avenue plant, exclusive of all officials of Respon-
dent, office clerical employees, guards and all su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
(b) Refusing or failing to honor or give effect to
their collective-bargaining agreement with Local 46
covering the employees in the appropriate unit.
(c) Unilaterally changing existing rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of employees in the appropriate unit with-
out prior notice to Local 46 and without having af-
forded Local 46 an opportunity to negotiate and
bargain concerning such changes.
(d) Bargaining directly and individually with the
employees in the appropriate unit.
(e) Discharging and failing or refusing to reinstate
employees because they are members of Local 46 or
represented by that labor organization and in order to
avoid recognizing or dealing with Local 46.
(f) Recognizing Local 807, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, as the representative of its em-
ployees, unless and until said labor organization has
been duly certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the exclusive representative of such employ-
ees.
(g) Assisting or contributing financial or other sup-
port to Local 807.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain with Lo-
cal 46 as the exclusive bargaining representative of
their employees in the above-described appropriate
unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request by Local 46, honor and give ef-
fect to the bargaining agreement with that labor or-
ganization covering employees in the above-described
appropriate unit.
(c) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Local 807 as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining un-
less and until the said labor organization has been
duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(d) Offer the discharged employees of Respondent
SDS Distributing Corporation immediate and full re-
instatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed.
(e) Make the discharged employees of Respondent
SDS Distributing Corporation whole for any loss of
earnings or benefits they may have suffered due to the
discrimination practiced against them in the manner
and to the extent set forth in the Remedy section of
this Decision.
(f) Make whole the appropriate Local 46 plans or
fund for any and all sums due and owing in pension,
health, welfare, or vacation benefits for all unit em-
ployees from the date of their unlawful discharge to
the date Respondents offer them full and proper rein-
statement in the manner set forth in the Remedy sec-
tion of this Decision.
(g) Preserve and, upon request. make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necesary to analyze the amounts of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Post at its Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, New York,
place of business copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."3 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, af-
ter being duly signed by Respondents' representative,
shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof. The posted notices shall be maintained
by Respondents for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notice
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. Copies of the notice shall also be
In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
326
SDS DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION
mailed to the last known address of all unit employ-
ees employed during 1978.
(i) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been 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 NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
collectively with Brewery Delivery Employees
Local 46, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the bargaining representative in the
following appropriate unit:
All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, beer
plumbers and clerks employed by us at the
Forrest Street and then at the Kent Avenue
plant, exclusive of all company officials, office
clerical employees, guards and all supervisors
as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to honor or give
effect to our collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 46 covering employees in the appro-
priate unit.
WE WILL NOT change existing rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of employees in the appropriate
unit without prior notice to Local 46 and without
having afforded Local 46 an opportunity to ne-
gotiate and bargain concerning such changes.
WE WILL NOT bargain directly and individ-
ually with the employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT discharge and fall or refuse to
reinstate our employees because they are mem-
bers of Local 46 or of any other union and in
order to avoid recognizing or dealing with Local
46 or any other union.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 807, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
representative of our employees unless and until
it has been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as their representative.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute financial or
other support to Local 807.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain
with Local 46 as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees in the appropriate
unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.
WE %'IL.L, upon request of Local 46, honor and
give effect to the bargaining agreement with that
labor organization covering employees in the ap-
propriate unit.
WE WLl. withdraw and withhold all recogni-
tion from Local 807 as the exclusive representa-
tive of our employees for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining unless and until Local 807 has
been duly certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative of our
employees.
WE WILL offer to the employees of SDS Dis-
tributing Corporation discharged on January 31,
1978, immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed by them.
WE WILL make the employees of SDS Distrib-
uting Corporation discharged on January 31,
1978, whole for any loss of earning or benefits
they may have suffered due to our unlawful dis-
crimination against them together with interest.
WE WILL make whole the appropriate Local
46 plan for any and all sums due and owing in
pension, health, welfare, or vacation benefits for
all unit employees from the date of their unlaw-
ful discharge until the date we offer them full
and proper reinstatement.
SDS DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION
327