Dura Art Stone, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 2005

346 N.L.R.B. 149 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DURA ART STONE, INC.
346 NLRB No. 14
149
Dura Art Stone, Inc. and United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, Local 1421
Amalgamated Industrial Workers Union, Local 61
and United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, Local 1421. Cases 31–CA–
26009 and 31–CB–11160
December 23, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On July 31, 2003, Administrative Law Judge William
L. Schmidt issued the attached decision. Each Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
Charging Party filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs1 and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,
findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recom-
mended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent Employer, Dura Art Stone,
Inc., Fontana, California, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, and the Respondent Union, Amalga-
mated Industrial Workers Union, Local 61, and its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.

1 The Respondent Union has requested oral argument, and the
Charging Party has opposed the request. The request is denied as the
record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties. We also deny, as mooted by this Decision and
Order, the Regional Attorney’s Sept. 13, 2005, “Motion for the Board
to Give Priority” to this case.
2 We address only the conduct that Respondents actually engaged
in—continuing their negotiations and executing a collective-bargaining
agreement when they had knowledge of the employee disaffection
petition establishing the Union’s loss of majority status. We agree with
the judge, substantially for the reasons he stated, that, under the Board’s
precedent, the Respondents’ conduct violated the Act as alleged. There
was no timely petition pending before the Board, and, thus, fn. 52 and
related text in Levitz Furniture, 333 NLRB 717 (2001), do not privilege
the conduct here. Because Levitz is not further implicated here, we do
not pass on other aspects of that case. Accordingly, we do not rely on
the judge’s statement that “Levitz left little doubt that an employer,
faced with knowledge that the incumbent union has lost its majority
support, must withdraw recognition.”
Brian Gee, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gordon A. Letter and Robert F. Millman, Esqs. (Littler Mendel-
son, PC), of Los Angeles, California, for Dura Art Stone,
Inc.
Howard Z. Rosen, Esq. (Posner & Rosen, LLP), of Los Ange-
les, California, for Amalgamated Industrial Workers Union,
Local 61.
Polly J. Halfkenny, General Counsel, United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America (UE), of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT, Administrative Law Judge. This con-
solidated proceeding arises from charges filed by United Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1421
(UE or the Charging Party) on November 4, 2002,1 alleging
that Dura Art Stone, Inc. (Dura Art Stone or Respondent Em-
ployer) violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act), and that Amalgamated Industrial
Workers Union, Local 61 (Local 61 or Respondent Union)
violated 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.2 Based on those
charges, the Regional Director for Region 31 of the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) issued a formal
complaint March 31, 2003, alleging that Dura Art Stone and
Local 61 engaged in unfair labor practices by entering into a
collective-bargaining agreement containing a union-security
clause and a dues-checkoff provision at a time when both knew
that Local 61 no longer enjoyed the support of a majority of the
unit employees covered by that agreement.
After reviewing the entire record, resolving where necessary
credibility issues on the basis of a variety of factors, including
the demeanor of the witnesses,3 and after considering the briefs
filed by all parties, I have concluded the General Counsel has
proven that Respondents violated the Act as alleged based on
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Dura Art Stone, a corporation, with an office and place of
business in Fontana, California, is engaged in the business of
manufacturing architectural products in cast stone and cast
gypsum. It annually purchases and receives goods and services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside
the State of California. Accordingly, I find the Respondent
Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, subject to the

1 Where not shown otherwise, all further dates refer to the 2002 cal-
endar year.
2 The UE amended its charge against Respondent Employer on De-
cember 3. It amended its charge against Respondent Union on Novem-
ber 5 and again on December 3.
3 My findings reflect credibility resolutions using, in the main, vari-
ous factors summarized by Judge Medina in U.S. v. Foster, 9 F.R.D.
367, 388–390 (1949). In making these findings, I have considered all
of the testimony and documentary evidence. I do not credit testimony
inconsistent with my findings.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD150
Board’s jurisdiction, and that it would effectuate the purposes
of the Act for the Board to exercise that jurisdiction to resolve
this dispute.
I further find that Respondent Union, Amalgamated Indus-
trial Workers Union, Local 61 and Charging Party United Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1421, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Relevant Facts
Between 1990 and 2002, Dura Stone and Local 61 were sig-
natory to a series of 3-year collective-bargaining agreements,
the most recent being effective from 1999 through October 21,
2002 (99-02 contract). The 99-02 contract contained the terms
and conditions of employment for the Dura Art Stone employ-
ees employed in the following appropriate unit:
Finishing employees, welders, forklift operators, drivers,
housekeeping and janitorial employees employed at the Dura
Art Stone plant in Fontana, California, but excluding all office
clerical employees, salespersons, guards, supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, as amended, and specialized skills covered
by other collective-bargaining agreements.
At relevant times in 2002, Dura Art Stone employed about 62
employees in this unit.
On July 9, 2002, John Romero, president of Local 61, sent a
letter to Dura Art Stone President Thomas Seifert expressing
his wish to “renegotiate” a new contract in light of the existing
CBA’s approaching expiration. In a letter to Romero dated
July 16, Seifert acknowledged receipt of Romero’s letter, ad-
vised that he would be away from his office until July 29, and
promised to schedule negotiations with Romero when he re-
turned. After Seifert returned, negotiations commenced; they
continued through August, and half of September. Admittedly,
the parties concluded no final agreement up to that time.
In the meantime, unit employees were discussing their dis-
satisfaction with Local 61 representation among themselves.
After considerable talk, one unit employee, Francisco Ledezma,
sought assistance from Libreria del Pueblo, a community or-
ganization. A Libreria del Pueblo representative arranged a
meeting between four of the unit employees and Miguel Cana-
les, a UE field organizer. Subsequently, Canales held more
meetings involving larger groups of employees at Ledezma’s
home and began obtaining signed authorization cards. How-
ever, neither the UE nor any other labor organization or person
filed any type of representation petition with the NLRB during
the 90- to 60-day open period before the expiration of the 99-02
contract.
On September 20, Seifert received a petition dated Septem-
ber 18, and signed by 48 unit employees expressing their lack
of support for Local 61. The petition stated explicitly that the
signers did not have confidence in Local 61, did not want Local
61 to represent them anymore, and did not want Seifert to nego-
tiate further with Local 61. On September 30, Seifert informed
Romero of the petition. Romero received a copy of the petition
before October 17. Nevertheless, Seifert and Romero contin-
ued the negotiations for a new contract between September 30
and October 16. On October 17, Seifert and Romero signed a
contract for the term of October 22, 2002 to October 21, 2005
(02-05 contract).
The 02-05 contract continued the union-security and dues-
checkoff provision contained in the predecessor agreement.
The union-security clause provides: “It shall be a condition of
employment that all employees of the Employer covered by this
Agreement shall, within thirty (30) days after their date of hire,
become and remain member[s] of the Union in good standing.
The initiation fee, to be deducted one time only upon Union
membership, and the dues schedule are on file with the Com-
pany.” The dues-checkoff provision provides in relevant part:
“It is expressly agreed by and between the Employer and the
Union, that the Employer at its sole discretion may deduct from
the wages of employees Union dues, provided that the Em-
ployer has received from such employee a voluntary, written
authorization of the amount to be deducted from his/her wages.
It is expressly agreed that the Employer may discontinue de-
ducting from the wages of employee union dues at any time at
its sole discretion.”
On October 25, Canales wrote a letter to Seifert and hand de-
livered it to his office at the Fontana facility. The letter re-
quested that Dura Art Stone recognize and negotiate with the
UE as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployees represented by Local 61. It further offered to prove the
UE’s majority status by means of a card check. Seifert never
responded to Canales’ letter. On October 28, the UE filed a
NLRB representation petition seeking to represent the employ-
ees covered by the recently signed 02-05 contract.
B. Argument
The General Counsel contends that Dura Art Stone and Lo-
cal 61 violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2), respectively, because they entered into a
new contract, containing a union-security clause and a dues-
checkoff provision, with knowledge that Local 61 no longer
represented a majority of the unit employees. The General
Counsel relies on a consistent line of Board decisions com-
mencing with Hart Motor Express, 164 NLRB 382 (1967), that
hold a respondent employer and incumbent union have violated
the Act by entering into a new contract after acquiring knowl-
edge that the union no longer enjoys majority support. See,
e.g., Point Blank Body Armor, Inc., 312 NLRB 1097 (1993);
Kenrich Petrochemicals, 149 NLRB 910 (1964); Presbyterian
Community Hospital, 230 NLRB 599 (1977); Pepsi Cola Bot-
tling Co., 187 NLRB 15 (1971).
In cases of this nature, counsel for the General Counsel per-
ceives four elements to establish a violation:
1. Both Respondents received the employee petition
during the insulated period of the last 60 days before expi-
ration of the existing collective-bargaining agreement.
2. Respondents continued to negotiate and execute a
contract despite their knowledge of Local 61’s minority
status.
3. The contract executed by the Respondents on Octo-
ber 17 contained a union security clause and dues-
checkoff provision.
DURA ART STONE, INC. 151
4. No election petition had been filed or was pending
with the Board prior to October 17.
Although General Counsel acknowledges that Levitz Furni-
ture Co., 333 NLRB 717 (2001), created a “petition pending”
exception to the usual rule that an employer must cease recog-
nizing a minority union, he asserts that principle has no applica-
tion here because no party had filed a petition by the time Dura
Art Stone and Local 61 signed the new contract. Simply put,
the General Counsel contends Respondents’ conduct in negoti-
ating, executing, and implementing the 2002–2005 contract
should be found unlawful based on the principle that an em-
ployer may not execute a collective-bargaining agreement with
a minority union. Ladies’ Garment Workers (Bernhard-
Altmann) v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731 (1962). The Charging Party
concurs with the General Counsel’s contentions.4
Both Respondents complain, in effect, that it would have
been impossible for a petition to have been filed at the time
employees presented Seifert with their disaffection petition
because of the Board’s contract bar rules. Dura Art Stone con-
tends that it did not violate the Act by negotiating and execut-
ing the 2002–2005 contract with Local 61 because, under De-
luxe Metal Furniture Co., 121 NLRB 995 (1958), and Hajoca
Corp., 291 NLRB 104 (1988), Local 61 enjoyed an “irrebut-
table” presumption of majority when both Respondents re-
ceived the employee petition. Dura Art Stone argues that Ken-
rich Petrochemical and the Hart Motor Express line of cases
erroneously fail to recognize the existence of an irrebuttable
presumption during the last 60 days of a contract.
Dura Art Stone contends that Levitz overturned Hart Motor
Express in cases in which an election petition is pending, but is
silent on the issue of whether an employer may withdraw rec-
ognition when the union has lost majority status if no petition
has been filed. Dura Art Stone would have the Board rule that,
if no petition has been filed, and the employer and union reach
a new agreement during the insulated period, the agreement
should be given full effect, regardless of an employee petition
rescinding majority support for the union.
Dura Art Stone further argues that it did not violate the Act
by executing the October 2002 agreement with Local 61 be-
cause the unit employees could have filed an election petition
during the open period prior to August 22, as provided in Leo-
nard Wholesale Meats, Inc., 136 NLRB 1000 (1962), but they
did not. Dura Art Stone contends that, because Seifert had no
knowledge of whether the employee petition accurately re-
flected employee sympathies concerning Local 61, he was obli-
gated to continue negotiating with the Union, and to execute a
written memorialization of the agreement reached.
Local 61 also disagrees with the Board’s decision in Kenrich
Petrochemicals to the extent that it gives effect to employee
petitions, such as the one here, signed during the insulated pe-

4 At the outset of the hearing, during consideration of Respondents’
petitions to revoke the UE’s subpoena served upon them, the UE sig-
naled its intention to offer evidence that the Respondents negotiated the
2002–2005 contract after the UE filed its representation petition on
October 28, and backdated its actual execution. I ruled that the UE’s
theory was at variance with the General Counsel’s theory of the case
and refused to litigate the UE’s theory.
riod. Local 61 views such holdings as contrary to Deluxe
Metal. Local 61 also disagrees with the Board’s conclusion in
Hart Motor Express that a statement from a majority of bar-
gaining unit employees that they no longer wish to be repre-
sented by the union demonstrates a loss of majority status.
Local 61 argues that because the Board did not require an em-
ployer (who had not expressly agreed to do so), to accept union
authorization cards as proof of majority status in Jefferson
Smurfit Corp., 331 NLRB 809 (2000), Dura Art Stone should
not be required to accept the employee petition as evidence that
Local 61 had lost majority status.
Local 61 contends that only a Board election can definitively
determine loss of majority status and cites Maramont Corp.,
317 NLRB 1035 (1995), in which the judge found that a disaf-
fection petition signed by the majority of unit employees did
not reflect actual loss of majority status. Local 61 further con-
tends that Levitz held that the preferred way to determine ma-
jority status is with an election because, as the judge in Mara-
mont found, neither a union nor an employer can know whether
an employee petition truly represents the desires of the signers.5
Local 61 further argues that Dura Art Stone’s employees
should have filed an election petition during the open period if
they did not wish to be represented by Local 61 any longer.
The employees’ actions here, Local 61 argues, were exactly
what Deluxe Metal was designed to prevent by establishing the
60-day insulated period. Because no party filed an election
petition, Local 61 claims it was free to negotiate and execute
the October 17 contract.
C. Further Findings and Conclusions
At the outset, I reject the claim both Respondents advance to
the effect that this employee petition fails to accurately reflect
employee sympathies toward Local 61. In my judgment, its
language rejecting Local 61 is unambiguous and unmistakable.
No one questions the authenticity of the employee signatures
that appear on the petition. In these circumstances, the wording
of the petition deserves to be given its plain meaning. DTR
Industries, 311 NLRB 833, 840 (1993) (the Board does not, in
the absence of misrepresentations, “inquire into the subjective
motives or understanding of the [authorization] card signer to
determine what the signer intended to do by signing the card”).
I concur with the General Counsel’s contention that Hart
Motor Express and its progeny control this case. Although the
Respondents’ contentions regarding the application of the insu-
lated period to this situation which they fashion from dicta in
Deluxe Metal has some surface appeal, the Board specifically
noted in Hart Motor Express that Deluxe Metal cannot be ap-
plied to strip employees of their Section 7 rights by keeping
them shackled to an agreement with a representative they do
not want. Even though the Board’s recent decision in Levitz
Furniture created an exception to the basic principle that an
employer violates the Act by continuing to recognize and con-
tract with an incumbent union known to have lost its majority
status, the exception created relates to situations where a repre-

5 I note, however, that the Board in Maramont rejected the judge’s
rationale and held that both the employer and the union can be charged
with knowledge that the union had lost majority status when they re-
ceived an employee-sponsored petition to that effect. Id. at 1036.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD152
sentation petition is pending before the Board. This exception
aside, Levitz, in effect, reaffirms the general principle found in
Hart Motor Express.6 Because no petition was pending when
the 02-05 contract was signed, the Levitz exception to the Hart
Motor Express principle is inapplicable here.
On closer inspection the Respondents’ arguments fashioned
out of the Deluxe Metal dicta lose considerable luster. Unlike
the situation here, that case and its subsequent refinements in
Leonard Wholesale Meats, 136 NLRB 1000 (1962), and Gen-
eral Cable Corp., 139 NLRB 1123 (1962), are deeply rooted in
the Board’s administration of its responsibilities under Section
9 and, to a degree, Section 8(d). The contract bar policies es-
tablished in these cases are limited to the utilization of the
Board’s representation procedures under Section 9, in order to
provide a modicum of stability to the collective-bargaining
relationship by insulating it from Board petitions filed by rivals.
Nothing in the Board’s contract bar rules serves to preclude the
type of employee Section 7 activity which occurred here. Sim-
ply put, the contract bar rules were not designed for that pur-
pose.
Because of the Board’s contract bar doctrine, employees as
well as rival unions have a limited 30-day period in which to
petition the Board for a change in representation. In its argu-
ment, Dura Art Stone referred to this 30-day open period as an
exception to the incumbent union’s so-called irrebuttable pre-
sumption. Applying that rationale, it could be said with equal
or greater force, that the principle articulated in Hart Motor
Express is simply another exception to the irrebuttable pre-
sumption. Nothing in the Deluxe Metal rationale, or the con-
text in which it applies, suggests that the Board ever intended
thereby to impose a bargaining agent on a nonconsenting ma-
jority, a practice the Supreme Court condemned in the Bern-
hard-Altmann case because “[t]here could be no clearer
abridgment of Section 7 of the Act.” Supra, 366 U.S. at 737.
Finally, I reject Respondent Dura Art Stone’s contention that
it faced a no-win situation because it was exposed to the risk of
being held responsible for violating the Act if it refused to bar-
gain with Local 61, as well as the risk of violating the Act if it
continued to recognize Local 61. In my judgment Levitz left
little doubt that an employer, faced with knowledge that the
incumbent union has lost its majority support, must withdraw
recognition. Rather than doing that, the facts here support the
inference that the Respondents hurried to conclude the 02-05
contract before the old agreement expired. For these reasons, I
find Respondents violated the Act as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dura Art Stone is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

6 Thus the Board pointed out that “[u]nder Board law, if a union ac-
tually has lost majority support, the employer must cease recognizing it,
both to give effect to employees’ free choice and to avoid violating
Section 8(a)(2) by continuing to recognize a minority union. But an
employer violates Section 8(a)(2) only by continuing to recognize a
union that it knows has actually lost majority support, not one whose
majority status is merely in doubt.” 333 NLRB at 724. (Footnotes
omitted.)
2. Local 61 is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local 61 represented the following appropriate unit of
employees:
Finishing employees, welders, forklift operators, drivers,
housekeeping and janitorial employees employed at the Dura
Art Stone plant in Fontana, California, but excluding all office
clerical employees, salespersons, guards, supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, as amended, and specialized skills covered
by other collective-bargaining agreements.
4. By negotiating and executing a collective-bargaining
agreement covering the employees in the above unit, which
included a union-security clause and dues-checkoff provision,
at a time when the Union no longer represented a majority of
such employees, Dura Art Stone engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act and Local 61 engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices described above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Employer and Respondent
Union have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that
they must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As Respondent Employer and Respondent Union executed a
collective-bargaining agreement when the Union did not enjoy
majority support, I recommend that Respondent Employer be
required to withdraw recognition of Local 61 and that both
Respondents cease giving effect to their collective-bargaining
agreement of October 17, 2002. However, nothing in this De-
cision and Recommended Order shall be deemed to require the
Respondent Employer to vary or abandon any wage, hour, sen-
iority, or other term of employment, which the Respondent
Employer has established in the performance of the contract, or
to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may
have under the contract.
Further, as the collective-bargaining agreement contained a
union-security clause and a check-off provision, I recommend
that the Respondents be required to jointly and severally reim-
burse the unit employees for any amount deducted from their
earnings by Respondent Employer and paid to Respondent
Union, or otherwise paid to Respondent Union, for dues, fees,
or other obligations of union membership, pursuant to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement executed on October 17, 2002.
Hart Motor Express, supra. Interest on such payments or de-
ductions from earnings shall be computed in the manner set
forth in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended7

7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
DURA ART STONE, INC. 153
ORDER
A. The Respondent Employer, Dura Art Stone, Inc.,
Fontana, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Recognizing or otherwise contributing support to Re-
spondent Union unless it is certified as the employee collective-
bargaining representative in an election conducted by the
NLRB.
(b) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with
Respondent Union dated October 17, 2002, or to any extension,
renewal, or modification thereof; provided, however, that noth-
ing in this Order shall be deemed to require the Respondent
employer to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other
substantive term of employment established under the contract,
or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they
may have under the contract.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Fontana, California, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix A.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being
signed by the Respondent Employer’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent employer immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent Employer to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent Em-
ployer has gone out of business or closed the operations in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent Employer shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current and former employees employed by the Respondent
Employer at any time since November 4, 2002.
(b) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as
set forth in (a) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the
Regional Director for Region 31, copies of the Respondent
Union’s notice herein marked “Appendix B.”
(c) Withdraw and withhold recognition of Local 61 until it
becomes certified as the employee representative following an
NLRB-supervised election.
B. The Respondent Union, Amalgamated Industrial Workers
Union, Local 61, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with
Respondent Employer dated October 17, 2002, or to any exten-
sion, renewal, or modification thereof.

8 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Employer
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by entering into, or maintaining, any agree-
ment with the Respondent Employer which requires, as a con-
dition of employment, membership in the Respondent Union,
or in any like or related manner causing, or attempting to cause,
the Respondent Employer to discriminate against any employee
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing the
employees of Dura Art Stone, Inc., in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its un-
ion office in Colton, California, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix B.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being
signed by the Respondent Union’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent Union immediately upon
receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent Union to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, dur-
ing the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent Union
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent Union shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current members
and former members of the Respondent Union at any time since
November 4, 2002.
(b) Sign and return to the Regional Director, sufficient cop-
ies of the notice for posting by Dura Art Stone at its Fontana,
California facility, as provided above.
C. Both Respondents shall be ordered to
1. Jointly and severally reimburse employees of the Re-
spondent Employer for any amounts paid to Respondent’s Un-
ion, or deducted from their earnings by Respondent Employer,
for dues, fees, or other obligations of union membership, pur-
suant to the collective-bargaining agreement executed on Octo-
ber 17, 2002, with interest as provided in the remedy section of
this decision.
2. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondents have taken to comply.

9 See fn. 8, supra.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD154
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT contribute support to Amalgamated Industrial
Workers Union, Local 61 by recognizing Local 61 as the col-
lective-bargaining representative for the following unit of em-
ployees:
Finishing employees, welders, forklift operators, drivers,
housekeeping and janitorial employees employed at the Dura
Art Stone plant in Fontana, California, but excluding all office
clerical employees, salespersons, guards, supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, as amended, and specialized skills covered
by other collective-bargaining agreements.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our collective-bargaining agree-
ment of October 17, 2002, with Amalgamated Industrial Work-
ers Union, Local 61. We are not required, however, to vary the
wages, hours, seniority or other terms of employment estab-
lished under the agreement, and our employees are free to as-
sert any rights they may have under the agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withhold recognition of Local 61 as the representa-
tive of our employees until they are certified as such following
an election conducted by the NLRB.
WE WILL jointly and severally, with Amalgamated Industrial
Workers Union, Local 61, reimburse our employees for any
amounts deducted from your earnings and paid to Local 61, for
dues, fees, or other obligations of union membership, pursuant
to our collective-bargaining agreement executed on October 17,
2002.
DURA ART STONE, INC.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND
DURA ART STONE, INC. EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board had found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
WE WILL NOT perform, enforce, or give effect to our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement of October 17, 2002, with Dura Art
Stone, Inc.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Dura Art Stone, Inc.
to discriminate against employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by entering into or maintaining any agree-
ment with Dura Art Stone, which requires membership in our
organization as a condition of employment, or in any like or
related manner cause, or attempt to cause, Dura Art Stone to
discriminate against any employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce the employees of Dura Art Stone, Inc., in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally, with Dura Art Stone, Inc. re-
imburse Dura Art Stone employees for any amount paid to our
organization, or deducted from their earnings, for dues, fees, or
other obligations of union membership, pursuant to our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement executed on October 17, 2002.
AMALGAMATED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL
61