Federal Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 469 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION
Federal Electric Corporation and Office and Profes-
sional Employees International Union , AFL-CIO
and Communications Workers of America, Local
6222 , AFL-CIO, Intervenor and Party to Con-
tract. Case 23-CA-2429
September 19, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On May 18, 1967, Trial Examiner Harold X.
Summers issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommended that those allegations be
dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the In-
tervenor filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and briefs in support thereof.
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
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner only to the extent con-
sistent herewith.'
The relevant facts are for the most part not in
dispute. They show that Data Duplicators, Inc.,
referred to herein as Data, is a small, closely held
Texas corporation with its principal office located
in South Houston. It is primarily engaged in render-
ing printing and reproduction services to local com-
mercial concerns, and had also performed some
"overflow" printing services at its plant for the
Manned Spacecraft Center of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration located in
Houston. About a year prior to the events here in
issue, Data's contract with NASA was amended to
provide that Data would supply personnel to man
the government-owned quick-copy reproduction
machines located "on-site" at the Manned
' The Respondent has requested oral argument As the record, includ-
ing the exceptions and briefs, adequately sets forth the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties , the request is hereby denied
167 NLRB No. 63
469
Spacecraft Center, compensation for this work to
be made by NASA on the basis of a fixed fee.
In March 1966, the Charging Party, Office and
Professional Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, referred to herein as OPE, sought an
election in a unit of Data's reproduction employees
at the Manned Spacecraft Center. Data opposed
the election on the ground that it was untimely as
Data expected to discontinue the "on-site" services
within 4 months, and that the proposed unit was in-
appropriate as it did not include the employees
doing the same work at Data's South Houston
plant. The Regional Director rejected both of these
contentions; the election was held; and on April 21,
1966, OPE was certified.' OPE, however, never
obtained a collective-bargaining agreement with
Data.
The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is a
wholly owned service organization of International
Telephone and Telegraph Company and operates
on a nationwide basis. Prior to the spring of 1966,
pursuant to a contract with NASA, the Respondent
performed tasks at the Manned Spacecraft Center
in Houston in three departments: Technical Data
Services, Graphic Arts, and Logistics. In the Lo-
gistics Department, it performed work related to
cataloging and standardization of parts, storage and
issuance of parts, and the manning of supply service
centers. These centers handled the distribution of
various supplies, and also contained unmanned
reproduction machines, located throughout the "on-
site" operations, which Logistics Department em-
ployees had frequently operated.
On May 3 1, the Intervenor, Communications
Workers of America, Local 6222, AFL-CIO,
referred to herein as CWA, was certified as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent's Logistics Department employee S.3
In May 1966, NASA requested the Respondent
to submit a proposal for the performance of services
"identical or closely allied to services being per-
formed" under its present contract, including the
quick-copy duplicating service which was being
performed by Data. The Respondent's noncompeti-
tive bid was accepted. The Respondent's contract
with NASA, which included the quick-copy opera-
tion in addition to the various operations it had
previously performed for NASA, differed substan-
tially from the one under which Data had operated.
It provided, for example, that the Respondent's
compensation for the quick-copy work would be
based upon its costs, plus amounts based upon the
quality of its performance, instead of the flat fee
provided for in Data's contract.
On July 1, 1966, the Respondent commenced
operating the quick-copy services, which it placed
Case 23-RC-2630, not published in NLRB volumes
Case 23-RC-2682 , not published in NLRB volumes
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the Logistics Department where, as indicated
above, employees had been performing similar
reproduction work. Prior to beginning this opera-
tion, the Respondent interviewed Data employees,4
and hired 11 of the 28 former Data employees for
this newly acquired operation, which on July 1, had
a total complement of approximately 30 employees.
On June 27, OPE by letter sought to bargain with
the Respondent on behalf of the quick-copy person-
nel. On July 1, having received no reply, it filed
charges. On July 7, the Respondent notified OPE
that it refused its request for bargaining on the
ground that the employees in question were
covered by CWA's certification for the unit of Lo-
gistics Department employees. On August 31, the
Respondent and CWA entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement, effective September 1,
which included the quick-copy operators in its
coverage.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent's failure to hire some of the Data em-
ployees was not violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. The Trial Examiner found further, however,
that the Respondent was the successor to Data, and
was therefore required to bargain with OPE as the
representative of the unit of quick-copy employees.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner concluded that the
Respondent's failure so to recognize and bargain
with OPE was violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act, and that its recognition of CWA as the
representative of a unit including the newly
acquired quick-copy employees was violative of
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Both the Respondent and
CWA except to these findings and conclusions,
contending (a) that the Respondent was not a suc-
cessor to Data, and (b) that the quick-copy opera-
tion was an accretion to the CWA unit. For the
reasons set forth below, we find merit in these ex-
ceptions.
The unit issue. The Trial Examiner found that the
Respondent's newly acquired operation "could
properly be a part of an appropriate bargaining unit
consisting of all nonsupervisory Logistics Support
employees," but that it was "also an appropriate
bargaining unit within itself, as resolved in a prior
representation proceeding." We do not agree with
the latter finding. The record shows that the quick-
copy operators have the same level of education as,
possess degrees of skill comparable to, and perform
tasks similar to, the other Logistics Department
employees with whom they frequently interchange.
Furthelmore, these operators are located in the
same ggraphical areas, are subject to the same su-
pervision and labor policies, and share common em-
4 As found by the Trial Examiner , the Respondent 's procedure in
selecting Data employees for hire conformed to its standard hiring policy
on new projects, which was to select only a nucleus of the prior em-
ployer's employees , and to select them with particular care where , as here,
the Respondent 's compensation was based in large part on the quality of
its performance
5 Humble Oil & Refining Company, 155 NLRB 1084, and 153 NLRB
ployment benefits, working conditions, and con-
tractual terms as the other employees in the Lo-
gistics Department unit. In addition, the record
shows that the Respondent placed the quick-copy
operators in the Logistics Department as a matter
of business judgment, in view of the functional in-
tegration of the departmental operation.
It is clear from the foregoing and the entire record
that the former Data employees have been effec-
tively merged into and have become an integral part
of the Respondent's Logistics Department. They
constitute only a segment of the employees in that
Department possessing the same employment in-
terests, and are, in fact, no longer identifiable for
unit purposes by classification but only by name.
We find, therefore, that the unit of Data's quick-
copy employees formerly represented by OPE has
ceased to exist as a separate unit, and, further, that
the quick-copy employees do not constitute a
separate appropriate unit but are an integral part of
the certified departmental unit represented by
CWA.5
The successorship issue. The facts show that
Data is an independent local outfit, in contrast to
the Respondent which operates on a nationwide ba-
sis, and that Data's quick-copy service was its sole
"on-site" operation for NASA, whereas the
Respondent assumed this work as part of its larger
operation of providing NASA with services auxilia-
ry to NASA's main effort at the Spacecraft Center.
Furthermore, the contract under which the Re-
spondent assumed the quick-copy operation pro-
vided for compensation based upon the quality of its
performance, whereas Data's contract had provided
for a flat fee. Also, it is significant that the Respond-
ent, for lawful economic reasons, employed only
11 of Data's 28 former employees for an operation
which requires approximately 30 employees.
Finally, we note that the employees in question are
covered by a contract that the Respondent ex-
ecuted with CWA for the Logistics Department
unit.
It is apparent , therefore, that when the Respond-
ent undertook the performance of the service
which Data had previously performed, it resulted in
a different type of employing enterprise, which
operated under a different type of contract, per-
formed a far wider range of services, employed
many more employees, and performed the quick-
copy operation with a minority of Data's former
employees, who constituted a minority of the em-
ployees doing this type of work for the Respond-
1361, GreatAtlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 140 NLRB 1011.
The Trial Examiner 's Decision states that the "quick-copy operation
cannot be treated as an accertion to the CWA-certified unit without a self-
determination election ." In view of the reasons stated above for finding
the quick-copy operation to be an accertion to the CWA unit, however, a
self-determination election is clearly inappropriate.
FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION
ent.6 In addition, it is clear that the absorption of the
smaller Data operation into the larger one of the
Respondent has resulted in a distinct change in the
employer-employee relationship.' Accordingly, we
find, under all the circumstances of this case, that
the Respondent is not the successor to Data, and
that it was therefore not required to assume Data's
bargaining relationship with OPE.
In sum, therefore, as the unit of Data's quick-
copy employees has been merged into the Respond-
ent's Logistics Department unit, for which CWA
is the certified representative, we conclude that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act by bargaining with CWA as the representative
of these employees. Further, as the Respondent is
not a successor to Data, we conclude that it did not
violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to
recognize and negotiate with OPE as the represen-
tative of its newly acquired quick-copy employees.
Accordingly, as we find that the Respondent has
committed no violations of the Act, we shall dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
8 N L.R B v Auto Ventshade, Inc , 276 F 2d 303 (C A 5), N L R.B
v Alamo White Truck Service, Inc, 273 F 2d 238 (C A 5), N L R B v
Albert Armato and Wire & Sheet Metal Specialty Co, 199 F 2d 800
(C A 7), Johnson Ready Mix Co, 142 NLRB 437, Cruse Motors, Inc,
105 NLRB 242, Lander Shoe Corporation dlbla Bruce Shoe Co, 103
NLRB 1322
' NLRB v Aluminum Tubular Corp, 299 F.2d 595 (C A 2), cf
McGuire v Humble Oil & Refining Company, 355 F 2d 352, 356 (C A
2)
In finding the Respondent to be Data's successor, the Trial Examiner
relied upon Maintenance, Incorporated, 148 NLRB 1299, which he
found to be "singularly like the instant" case Although that case bears a
similarity to the instant case, it is distinguishable In Maintenance, the
successor hired an overwhelming majority of the employees in the unit,
whereas here the Respondent, as indicated, hired only 11 employees in a
unit of 28 (Cf N L R B v John Stepp's Friendly Ford, Inc, 338 F 2d
833, 835-836 (C A 9)) Also, the successor in Maintenance took over the
operation under the same type of government contract that its predecessor
had, whereas here the Respondent assumed the reproduction work under
an entirely different contract, which applied to the entire unit
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had violated Section
8(a)(5) by its refusal to negotiate with OPE about the hiring of Data's em-
ployees, in addition to its refusal to recognize OPE as the representative
of the quick-copy employees He reasoned that such a finding was
required by Chemrock Corporation, 151 N LRB 1074 Since we find that
the Respondent was not Data's successor, we find it unnecessary to com-
ment upon the Trial Examiner's application ofChemrock to this case
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HAROLD X SUMMERS, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard upon the complaint' of the General Counsel of the
471
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
alleging that Federal Electric Corporation, herein called
Respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3),
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
Respondent's answer to the original complaint admitted
some of its allegations and denied others; in effect, it de-
nied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pur-
suant to notice, a hearing was held before me at Houston,
Texas, on November 16 and 17, 1966 (At the hearing,
the complaint was amended to allege the violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) of the Act, in response to which Respondent
answered, in effect denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices as alleged in the amendments.) All parties
were afforded full opportunity to call and examine and to
cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and thereafter
to submit briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses based upon
the evidence and my observation of their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Respondent is a Delaware corporation, wholly owned
by and the service contractor for International Telephone
and Telegraph Corporation. Its principal office at
Paramus, New Jersey, Respondent provides services to
governmental and commercial customers throughout the
various States of the United States as well as in 14 other
countries. One of these customers is the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (herein, NASA)
of the United States Government, for which it performs
services at Merritt Island and Cape Kennedy, Florida,
Huntsville, Alabama, and Houston, Texas-the latter
being the installation here involved. In the course and
conduct of its business operation at Houston during the
12-month period preceding the issuance of the instant
complaint (which period is representative of all times
material hereto) Respondent received revenues in excess
of $100,000 for its services, over $50,000 worth of which
were performed in States other than the State of Texas.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
If. THE UNIONS
The Charging Party, Office and Professional Em-
ployees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called
OPE, and the Intervenor/ Party to Contract, Communica-
tions Workers of America, Local 6222, AFL-CIO,
herein called CWA, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The "Changeover"
The background and sequence of events are uncom-
plicated and, in the main, uncontroverted.
In the spring of 1966, both Respondent and another
firm known as Data Duplicators, Inc. (here referred to as
' The complaint was issued September 8, 1966 The charge initiating
the proceeding was filed July 1, 1966
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Data), were performing services for NASA at the
Houston (Texas) Manned Spacecraft Center (here some-
times called the Space Center).
Data, a Texas corporation, had performed work for
NASA since mid-1963. The work, initially, consisted of
"overflow" printing work done at Data's South Houston
plant. In May 1965, the contract between NASA and
Data was amended to provide that Data also furnish em-
ployees on the site of the Space Center who, using
government-owned duplicating machinery, would make
copies of documents as desired and who would keep the
duplicating machinery in working order. (This work was
denominated "satellite quick-copy" service as distin-
guished from the offsite "overflow" printing.) Thereafter,
at least until June 30, 1966, Data's contract called for the
performance of both types of work.
Respondent's involvement at the Space Center began
on September 1, 1965. Under contract with NASA, it
performed tasks in three areas: (I) the preparation of
technical books and manuals, the responsibility of
Respondent's Technical Data Services Section; (2) the
preparation of schematic drawings and visual aids, the
responsibility of its Graphics or Graphic Arts Depart-
ment; and (3) warehousing, a function of the Logistics or
Logistics Support Department. Respondent's tasks in the
Logistics Department, at first, were confined to the
storage and issue of parts and their cataloging and stan-
dardization; and in November 1965, the responsibility of
manning Supply Centers for the distribution of sundry
supplies was added to Respondent's contract and was
placed in this department.
Early in 1966, the unionization of certain employees of
both employers took place.
On March 7,2 OPE filed a petition for certification with
the Board (Case 23-RC-2630), in which it sought to
become bargaining agent for Data's reproduction em-
ployees, including clerks, employed at the Space Center.
In that case, Data took the position that any unit found
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes should not
be confined to its employees at the Space Center but
should include as well its employees at its South Houston
plant. In his Decision and Direction of Election dated
March 15, the Regional Director for the Board, finding
the appropriate unit to be `.'All reproduction employees,
including clerks, employed at the Manned Spacecraft
Center, excluding all guards, watchmen, professional em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act," directed
that an election be held among the employees in this unit.
In an election held on April 13, a majority cast ballots in
favor of representation by OPE; and a certification of
OPE as the bargaining representative for the employees
in the unit found appropriate was issued on April 21.
At or about the same time, CWA took steps designed
to achieve status as the bargaining representative of cer-
tain of Respondent's employees at the Space Center. By
letter to Respondent sent on April 8, it claimed to have
been designated as bargaining representative by a majori-
ty of that Company's "non-supervisory employees in
library, catalogue, warehouse, store-keeper and stock
control departments" and, on April 11, it filed a represen-
tation petition (Case 23-RC-2682) with a Regional Of-
2 Henceforth , unless the contrary is indicated , all dates referred to fall
within 1966.
8 Calling this argument speculative, the Regional Director had rejected
it.
' Also covered by the RFP was a "Flight Operations" effort, then being
supplied by another contractor
fice of the Board. Pursuant to agreement, an election was
held on May 20, among "All employees of [Respondent]
engaged in Warehousing, Cataloguing, Stock Control and
Supply Service Centers of the Logistics department in
connection with contract NAS9-5208 at the Manned
Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, . . . [excluding]
Clerk typists, stenographers, secretaries, and all other
employees (including all Technical Data Service and
Graphic Arts department employees) and all professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act"
which election resulted, on May 31, in a certification of
CWA as bargaining agent for these employees.
Meanwhile, certain developments were unfolding in the
direction of effecting a change in the copywork opera-
tions at the Space Center.
At the representation case hearing concerning its Space
Center employees, Data had urged, among other things,
that no election be held in view of the probable cessation,
shortly, of its operations at the Space Center. It pointed
out that its contract covering such operations expired
June 30 and that it had been advised by the contracting
officer of NASA that the work it was performing at the
Center would no longer be included in its contract after
June 30.;
After preliminary talks several months earlier, the con-
tracting officer of NASA, on or about May 15, sent a
"request for proposal" (herein called RFP) to Respond-
ent, in which Respondent was invited to submit a
proposal for the performance of services "identical or
closely allied to services being performed under your con-
tract ... " which proposal was to cover a period
beginning July I ; in relevant part, the RFP purported to
cover "additional effort" for satellite quick-copy duplicat-
ing service at the Space Center.4 The proposal was made
and negotiations followed. Finally, Respondent was
awarded reproduction work to be performed at the
Center, effective July 1, 1966.
Organizationally, Respondent placed the newly
acquired work in its Logistics Department, in a (new)
Reproduction unit.5
On June 27, OPE wrote to Respondent, noting that it
had been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
"to represent your reproduction employees, including
clerks" and requesting an immediate meeting for bargain-
ing. On July 6,6 Respondent replied: it called attention to
the fact that OPE had not been certified as representative
of "our employees"; in fact, it continued, the Labor
Board had certified CWA as the bargaining representa-
tive of Respondent's employees, "and our reproduction
operations are included in this unit"; and, finally, noting
the pendency of the instant proceeding, deemed it un-
necessary to reply to OPE's demands.
Meanwhile, during June, Respondent had been en-
gaged in staffing up for the additional responsibilities it
would shoulder on July 1.7 Under its arrangement with
NASA, it needed a supervisor, a leadman, a clerk, 6
(heavy) reproduction equipment operators, and 21 (as-
sorted) copy machine operators for the quick-copy func-
tion. It procured a list of Data's onsite employees, with
Data's recommendation as to each, and was thereupon
S The Flight Operations effort, which it also acquired as of July 1, was
placed in the Technical Data Services Section
6 The instant charge meanwhile having been filed.
Not only for the quick -copy operation , but also for the flight operation
effort.
FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION 473
made aware of Data's intention to retain its unit manager,
its working supervisor or leadman, and its two reproduc-
tion equipment operators.8 Among other things, it dis-
tributed application forms to Data's employees then
doing satellite quick-copy work, and it accepted the filled
out forms from them and from any others who wished to
apply. Of the 30 nonsupervisory employees then em-
ployed by Data, 25 filed job applications with Respond-
ent; this record does not reveal how many applications
from "outsiders" were received.
On its payday of June 24, Data notified its satellite
quick-copy employees that, because its satellite operation
was being terminated, their services would no longer be
required as of July 1. It suggested that anyone who had
not received an employment application form from the
contractor who would take over on that day might obtain
one from Respondent at that organization's local offices.
Its onsite operations did end on June 30.9
Respondent hired I I "Data" people, their employment
to be effective July 1; one was a reproduction equipment
operator, the remaining 10 copy machine operators. In
addition, 19 others were hired for the satellite quick-copy
operation, one was the unit supervisor, another a lead-
man, 5 reproduction equipment operators, and 12 copy
machine operators.
As noted, CWA had been certified as bargaining agent
for a unit of Respondent's employees on May 31.
Negotiations between CWA and Respondent began on or
about July 6. On the second day of negotiations, H. R.
Gudenberg, Respondent's deputy director of labor rela-
tions, notified the CWA bargaining committee that
Respondent had acquired an operation formerly per-
formed by Data, an operation which involved the
reproduction of documents and which had been placed in
Respondent's Logistics Department- "for which CWA
had been certified." The committee, after considering the
matter overnight, informed Respondent that, based on the
information supplied by Respondent, CWA was of the
opinion that the employees engaged in the reproduction
operation were part of the bargaining unit for which CWA
had been certified and that, therefore, their working con-
ditions would be a subject of the current negotiations.
Respondent and CWA arrived at a collective-bargain-
ing agreement on August 31, to be effective September
1.10 The coverage of the agreement, by its terms, followed
the description of the unit for which CWA had been cer-
tified as bargaining agent 3 months earlier-see supra ;ii
and, among the job classifications for which the agree-
ment fixed working conditions were "Operator, Copy
Machine," "Reproduction Equipment Operator," and
"Leadman, Reproduction."
B. The Refusals To Hire
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that, on
or about July 1, 1966, Respondent refused to hire:
Harold Barrett Marie Louise Ozbun
Lesbia C. Cardenas Betty Lou Presson
Norma Grubbs Sue Reagan
Neila M. Harknett Velma Ross
Shirley Howard Carolyn M. Taylor
Barbara Johnson Treasa Taylor
Rita Kinman Geneese Tolbert
Mrs. Billie Webster
and thereafter continued in its refusal, because they
joined or assisted OPE or engaged in other union or con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
As has been explained, Data had 30 nonsupervisory
employees in its satellite quick-copy operation when that
operation was terminated on June 30; 25 of these had,
prior to that date, filed job applications with Respondent;
and, on or before July 1, Respondent had offered employ-
ment to 1 I of the 25. The 15 alleged discriminatees con-
sist of the 14 applicants who were not hired, plus one
(Neila Harknett) who, although not an employee of Data
on June 30, had previously been employed by that com-
pany and who, like the others, had applied for employ-
ment with Respondent.
The General Counsel, in effect, places his eggs in two
baskets - which receptacles, considered singly or in com-
bination, are not sufficiently strong to bear the prepon-
derating burden which his case requires.
He contends that the circumstances surrounding the
refusal of Respondent to hire Harknett furnish proof of
antiunion motivation which serves to explain the true
reason for Respondent's action, not only in her case but
in that of all other alleged discriminatees. He argues for
the acceptance of Harknett's testimony that she was of-
fered a job by Respondent, that she replied that she was
unable to give an immediate response to the offer because
she had to talk to her union representative, and that, when
she attempted to respond affirmatively later the same
day, she was told the offer was withdrawn because of a
misrepresentation on her job application, and "Besides,
we're not hiring any more union people." He contends
that the acceptance of this testimony would establish that
Respondent's refusal to hire was bottomed upon union
considerations.
Harknett (unlike the other alleged discriminatees) was
not an employee of Data on June 30 She had been em-
ployed by Data from July 19, 1965, until March 25,
1966, at which time her employment had been terminated
for "insubordination." On her application for employ-
ment with Respondent, which she filed in late May or
early June, she failed to note this latter fact, merely stat-
ing in the applicable space that she had left Data "to
secure better job." Shortly after she filed her application,
she was interviewed by an official of Respondent. Within
days, I find, Respondent made an initial determination to
hire her, and she was instructed to report, ready for work,
at 9:30 a.m. on June 24. She failed so to report, and, later
that morning, she was called for an explanation. She said
she was unable immediately to commit herself to the job12
8 This fact , I find, was the basis for its advertising , on June 9, for
reproduction equipment operators In context, I find that the references
in that advertisement to other types of copywork were descriptive of prior
work experience which was a condition of employment as a reproduction
equipment operator
"Under a new contract , Data continued to perform overflow printing
work for NASA at its South Houston plant after July 1. Its two super-
visors at the Space Center and one of its two reproduction equipment
operators were transferred to the South Houston Plant on July 1
10 The actual execution of a contract, effective by its terms for 34
months, took place in October
11 With minor changes (irrelevant here) occasioned by post-July 1
changes in NASA's operations.
12 There was immaterial conflict as to whether she had been told to
come in that morning or I week later (She testified that she understood
the latter ) At any rate, there is no disagreement that, misunderstanding or
no, she was now asked for a commitment
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
since she was waiting for a call from her union
representative.13 She was told that an immediate yes or
no was needed but, again referring to her expected phone
call, she equivocated. That afternoon - at the behest, ap-
parently, of her parents - she called Respondent and said
she was ready to report for work. Reminded that she had
refused to give a definite answer that morning , she was
told that the offer was no longer open; moreover, she was
informed, an intervening contact with Data had
established that her employment there had been ter-
minated for cause, an item she had misrepresented on her
application blank - which misrepresentation would make
her ineligible for future employment by Respondent.14
The other basket is a statistical one. The General Coun-
sel argues-and I find-that, of the 25 Data employees 15
who applied for employment with Respondent, only 11
were hired, of whom 8 had less than 3 months' experience
at Data; while, of the 14 not hired, 12 had more than 6
months' experience. Putting it another way-and here
again my findings of fact are in accord-the General
Counsel argues that 16 of the applicants had been eligible
to vote in the Data election which brought in OPE16 and
9 had not; of these two groups, Respondent hired 3 and 8
individuals, respectively.
The General Counsel contends that these two bundles
of facts establish (1) that Respondent made a conscien-
tious effort to select those of Data's employees with the
least experience and (2) that Respondent deliberately
sought to cut out from consideration those Data em-
ployees who had participated in the election which
brought in OPE.
On their faces, these combinations of factors do arouse
suspicions. But, quite frankly, in the absence of testimony
by expert statisticians or of a studied and annotated
statistical theory, I am unable to qualify these suspicions.
What are the odds against these employment figures aris-
ing out of pure chance? And how high must the odds be
before ruling out pure chance from Respondent's motiva-
tion as a practical matter? Again I say, I do not know.
Moreover, there was other testimony indicating (a) that
the figures are misleading or (b) that bases other than
either anti-OPE animus or pure chance may have existed.
For example, Velma Ross, one of the "old-timers" at
Data, was not hired by Respondent; yet she was the
company observer at the representation election. Should
the failure to hire her be denominated as an anti-OPE act?
Moreover, Respondent was ready to hire Neila Harknett
although, her application showed, she had been employed
by Data at the "critical" period. Is this the mark of an em-
ployer bent on avoiding hiring participants in the elec-
tion?
1' Here again , we have an immaterial conflict in testimony . Harknett
testified she said "union representative"; Respondent 's Employee Rela-
tions Administrator Brower, with whom she spoke, says she did not use
the first word. The materiality of the conflict dissolves in view of his
testimony that , aware that Data employees were represented by a union,
he interpreted her remark as referring to a union representative
" I do not credit Harknett's testimony that Brower ( to whom she was
again speaking) told her, "Besides , we're not hiring any more union peo-
ple" as against his contradicting testimony. Apart from the relative
demeanor of the two, and apart from the fact that Harknett had in her ap-
plication blank demonstrated little regard for truth , I regard the making of
any such statement by Brower as implausible , among other things,
because he already had good and sufficient reason not to hire Harknett.
The General Counsel asks me to interpret Respondent 's checking with
Data as to Harknett's employment record at midday on the 24th as indica-
tive that the job offer had in fact not been withdrawn during the morning
call. I reject this approach- Respondent , at or about this time, was in con-
Of some probative value is the attitude of Respondent
toward unions in general ,17 as displayed by the evidence.
It deals with unions at 11 locations in North America, in-
cluding the Carpenters, the Electricians, the Operating
Engineers , the Teamsters, and an Atomic Metal Trades
Council composed of 11 unions.
Most important, I find that Respondent did have non-
union connected reasons for its selections for hire.
Through testimony and argument, Respondent sought to
demonstrate that - since its compensation was to be
based in large part on quality of its performance - it was
determined to hire only the "best" people; and, in the ef-
fectuation of this determination, it laid down certain
"guidelines," such as requiring a high school education or
its equivalent for reproduction employees. In following
this policy, it conceded (and I find) that it made certain
"mistakes": several who were not hired had attained a
high school diploma or its equivalent . But I find it un-
necessary to test the adherence of Respondent to this as-
signed hiring policy. For, on the available evidence (par-
ticularly, statements of policy made by its employee rela-
tions administrator and its director of employee relations
on the witness stand and testimony as to Respondent's
experience in prior "takeovers" elsewhere), I find that
Respondent 's actual hiring policy on a new project, such
as this , is as follows : top management and key personnel
(for the new project) are brought in from another project
of Respondent, where available; a nucleus of rank-and-
file employees are selected from among the employees of
the operator whom Respondent succeeds - a nucleus
composed mainly of those most recently hired by the
predecessor operator (the "new blood"); and the rest are
hired from other sources. 18 This method of selection, it is
claimed by Respondent, avoids "stagnation" and pro-
vides the "best results." This, I find, was the method here
employed for selection of personnel for the new quick-
copy function.
Whatever the merits of this hiring policy and its effec-
tuation, I am authorized (and qualified) only to pass on its
lawfulness under the Act. I am not convinced, on a fair
preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent refused
to hire the 15 named individuals "because [they] joined
or assisted [OPE] or engaged in other union activities or
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection."
C. The Refusal to Bargain
The complaint alleges , and the answer denies, that, on
or about July 7, 1966, and at all times thereafter, Re-
spondent refused and refuses to bargain collectively with
scant touch with Data about its employees ; I find nothing unnatural about
its making this inquiry about an individual who had acted so equivocally
within the past few hours
" Excluding Harknett, who was not with Data when the change took
place.
16 The payroll date determining voting eligibility in that election had
been March 1 I , 1966. Of 23 employees eligible to vote, 18 cast ballots in
favor of OPE and 2 cast negative votes.
" In the instant case , there were no allegations , or evidence , of any in-
terference with, restraint upon , or coercion of employees in their exercise
of self-organizational rights, independent of that which might be implied
or derived from the specific allegations pressed.
11 True, Respondent caused application blanks to be passed out among
all Data's employees , and its agents publicly expressed hopes that all of
them would be willing to stay on with Respondent . I perceive no incon-
sistency between this conduct and the implementation of the policy
described above.
FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION 475
OPE for its employees engaged in the work previously
done at the Space Center by Data, although OPE was
their representative for collective -bargaining purposes.
The General Counsel proceeds on the theory that
Respondent is the "successor employer" of Data with
respect to this unit of employees. Respondent, calling
these employees an "accretion" to its own existing unit of
employees, argues thereby that there can be no "succes-
sorship" obligation to bargain. It urges further that, the
question of accretion aside, we do not have here the ele-
ments upon which a "successorship" obligation to bar-
gain depends.
Since I believe that the " successorship " issue can be
resolved regardless of the resolution of the "accretion" is-
sue, I here treat with the former alone.' 9
I have found that Data's contract to furnish quick-copy
service at the Space Center expired on June 30, and that
Respondent's contract covering the furnishing of services
at the Center was expanded to cover the furnishing of
quick-copy work beginning on July 1. 1 am satisfied from
the available evidence, that the quick-copy operation per-
formed by Respondent on and after July 1 was a con-
tinuation of Data's operation prior to that date.20
The employees performing this operation constituted
a unit appropriate for bargaining purposes- all (Data's)
reproduction employees, including clerks, employed at
the Manned Spacecraft Center, excluding all guards,
watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. I find that the same unit, substituting
"Respondent's" for "Data's," would be a unit ap-
propriate for collective bargaining
There is no question that OPE was the majority
representative of Data's employees on June 30, since it
had been certified on April 21, and, under settled law the
certification is presumptively valid for a year '21 or
longer ,22 in the absence of " special circumstances."
On March 30, 1964, the Supreme Court, in John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. v. David Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, con-
cluded that " in appropriate circumstances" certain
obligations may be imposed on a new owner of a business
by reason of the collective-bargaining contract of the
preceding owner. The instant case does not come square-
ly within Wiley because here there is no attempt to im-
pose on Respondent the terms of an existing collective-
bargaining contract'23 but what was said in Wiley is not ir-
relevant:
The objectives of national labor policy, reflected in
established principles of Federal law, require that the
rightful prerogative of owners independently to rear-
range their businesses and even eliminate themselves
as employers be balanced by some protection to em-
ployees from a sudden change in the employment
relationship. 24
It can now be considered settled that if the transfer of
assets and employees from one employer to another
leaves intact the identity of the employing enterprise,
then the former's duty to recognize and bargain with the
incumbent union devolves on the latter as "successor
employer."25 And this is particularly so'where the incum-
bent union has been recently certified; a change of the
employing entity is not considered one of the "unusual
circumstances" which will justify a discontinuance of a
bargaining relationship within a reasonable time after cer-
tification is issued.26
Respondent and/or CWA makes a number of cogent
arguments in an attempt to distinguish this from the usual
successorship case. It is pointed out that this was not a
case of the traditional transfer of assets. But neither was
there a transfer of assets in Maintenance , Incorporated, 27
where successorship was found . (And the same Decision
disposes of the argument, made by Respondent, that
there was no relationship , financial , organizational, or
otherwise , between Respondent and Data. ) My attention
is called to the fact that the usual "successor" carries on
with the same employees, whereas here the majority are
different employees. But there is precedent for finding a
succeeding "employing industry" nevertheless ; in Auto
Ventshade, supra, and in Johnson Ready Mix, supra, the
putative successors took but one-half of the prior em-
ployer's work force; in Krantz, supra, it took 25 percent;
and in Chemrock Corporation,28 it took none . Keying its
argument to N.L.R.B. v. Alamo White Truck Service,
Inc.," Respondent notes that it is a nationwide enterprise
while Data was a local operation . But this misses the
point of the Alamo decision; as the Fifth Circuit ex-
plained in the later Auto Ventshade case, Alamo
concerned a situation in which the predecessor was a
local business which primarily performed a service opera-
tion while Alamo was a nationwide company which,
when it took over, was primarily engaged in selling
trucks. And, finally, the argument that FEC did not take
over Data's whole operation and that the taken-over
operation was not the whole of FEC's operation must be
rejected ; the same, in essence, was true in Maintenance,
Inc., supra.
Likewise, I regard certain citations by Respondent, by
CWA, or by both, as inapposite . In N.L.R.B. v.
Aluminum Tubular Corp.,30 the question was not really
one of successorship; it involved whether or not two enti-
ties, which had existed simultaneously , were a single em-
10 But the question of whether we here have an accretion is treated in a
subsequent section hereof
20 1 regard the minor differences - e g , the variation in one or two work
locations and the replacement of some of the copy machines - as being
part of the series of changes attendant upon such an operation, changes in
the nature of those which had taken place throughout the period Data per-
formed the operation and which continued to take place after Respondent
took over
2' Ray Brooks v NLRB , 348 U S 96
22 Celanese Corporation ofAmerica, 95 NLRB 664
23 Indeed , no contract between Data and OPE had been consummated
28 Wiley , supra at 549
25 N L R B v Auto Ventshade, inc , 276 F 2d 303 (C A 5), N L R B.
v Lander Shoe Corp, dlbla Bruce Shoe Co., 211 F 2d 284 (C A 1),
N L.R.B v Thomas Parran, Jr, tla Silver Spring Transit Company, 237
F 2d 373 (C A 4), and N L R B v Blair Quarries , Inc, 152 F 2d 25
(C A 4), N L R B v Downtown Bakery Corp, 330 F 2d 921 (C A 6),
N L R B v Albert Armato and Wire & Sheet Metal Specialty Co, 199
F 2d 800 (C.A 7), N L R.B v F G McFarland and S R Hullinger,
dlbla McFarland & Hullinger, 306 F 2d 219 (C A 10), cf N L R B v
John Stepp's Friendly Ford, Inc, 338 F 2d 833, 835-836 (CA 9),
Johnson Ready Mix Co, 142 NLRB 437, Skaggs Drug Centers, dlbla
Payless Drug Stores, 150 NLRB 518, Randolph Rubber Company, Inc,
152 NLRB 496.
28 N L R B v Auto Ventshade , Inc, supra , Colony Materials, Inc ,
130 NLRB 105 , Krantz Wire & Mfg Co, 97 NLRB 971,enfd sub nom
N L R B v Albert Armato and Wire & Sheet Metal Specialty Co, 199
F 2d 800 (C A 7)
21 148 N LRB 1299 This case is singularly like the instant one
28 151 NLRB 1074
2" 273 F 2d 238 (C.A 5)
10 299 F 2d 595 (C A 2)
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer. In N.L.R.B. v. Appleton Electric Company,31 the
court, reversing the Board, found that there had been an
accertion to the appellant's existing unit; but, comment-
ing on the desirability of stable labor relations, it noted
that, under the Board Decision, the group of employees
in question would have no representation, O'Hara Metal
Products Co.32 involved a change of employees in which
new machinery was brought in and a new product became
the mainstay of the business. I do not believe that these
cases control the instant situation.
Finally, Respondent argues that, since this is an unfair
labor practice proceeding, the General Counsel has a
greater burden of proof than is called for to make findings
in a representation case. This is true,33 but it does not
mean- if such is implied in the argument- that the
General Counsel must demonstrate unlawful motivation
on the part of Respondent. Involved is an employer's
statutory obligations to meet and confer with the majority
representative of its employees on terms and conditions
of employment. In such a situation, prohibited conduct
cannot be excused by a showing of good faith.34
Upon the entire record and on what I am convinced is
a preponderance of the evidence, I am persuaded, and I
conclude and find, that Respondent, by refusing to recog-
nize OPE for the employees here involved, failed and is
failing to fulfill its obligation to bargain collectively with
the representative of its employees.
Citing Chemrock, supra, the General Counsel urges
that the failure of Respondent to hire the 15 alleged dis-
criminatees whose cases have been detailed earlier,
without having discussed with OPE the question of their
being hired, also constitutes an unlawful refusal to bar-
gain. For reasons stated in that decision, I find that the
refusal to "reinstate" them- except for Neila Harknett,
the failure to employ whom (I have found) was based
upon considerations other than union- or bargaining-re-
lated - indeed constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain.
D. Assistance to CWA
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that,
since on or about July 7, 1966, Respondent assisted and
supported CWA by recognizing and bargaining with
CWA as bargaining agent for the employees engaged in
the satellite quick-copy operation and, in the course
thereof, by granting a wage increase to these employees,
at a time when OPE was their certified bargaining agent.
I have already dealt with the question of whether OPE
was entitled to exclusive bargaining rights for the in-
volved employees and have answered that question in the
affirmative. If I am correct, Respondent's accord of
recognition to CWA and its subsequent entry with CWA
into a collective-bargaining agreement covering the work-
ing conditions of these employees, in derogation of its
duty to bargain with another labor organization, con-
stitutes assistance and support to CWA.
But, at another level of this proceeding, my resolution
of the successorship question may be adjudged to be er-
roneous. If so, another issue will loom. Even absent an
obligation on the part of Respondent to bargain with
OPE, the General Counsel argues, Respondent unlaw-
fully assisted CWA by recognizing that organization as
bargaining agent of the employees engaged in the satellite
quick-copy operation and by dealing with and entering
into a collective-bargaining agreement with that organiza-
tion covering the working conditions of those employees.
Respondent, on the other hand, defends its action on the
basis that the new group constituted an "accretion" to its
existing unit, already represented by CWA.35
As of June 30, Respondent's established unit, for
which CWA had been certified as bargaining agent on
May 3 1, consisted basically of nonsupervisory em-
ployees in its Logistics Department - individuals who,
scattered throughout the Space Center, were concerned
with furnishing assorted services auxiliary to NASA's
main effort. They handled component parts required by
NASA people (identifying, inventorying, cataloging,
warehousing, and issuing them) and office and similar
supplies used on the site (maintaining stores of and
dispensing them). As opposed to the nature of other
Center-connected employees of Respondent (most of
whom worked offsite rather than within the Center),
they generally performed duties which did not call for
more than a high school education and did not require an
extended period of training.
Respondent chose to place the quick-copy operation,
acquired July 1, in the same department. The work of its
incumbents, both in prospect and based upon subsequent
experience, was of a nature similar to that just described.
The performance of the operation was thinly dispersed
throughout the Space Center, and the prejob require-
ments were not unlike those of the existing Logistics em-
ployees. Indeed, the feasibility of interchange among
copy machine operators and other employees of the de-
partment has since been demonstrated.
I have no doubt that the quick-copy operation could
properly be a part of an appropriate bargaining unit con-
sisting of all nonsupervisory Logistics Support employees
or that, had Respondent performed this work in the spring
of 1966, it would have been a part of the unit which voted
on whether to be represented by CWA. But the plain and
simple fact is that it was also an appropriate bargaining
unit within itself, as resolved in a prior representation
proceeding. Not to belabor the point, it should be clear
that, in the face of this labor relations history, the quick-
copy operation cannot be treated as an accretion to the
CWA-certified unit without a self-determination elec-
tion.36
I find that there was no accretion here and that Re-
spondent's accord of recognition to CWA as bargaining
representative of the quick-copy employees and its sub-
sequent execution of a collective-bargaining agreement
covering them constituted unlawful assistance.
Upon the foregoing factual findings and conclusions, I
come to the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. OPE and CWA are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
31 296 F 2d 202 (C A 7)
32 155 NLRB 236
33 See N L R B v Appleton Electric, supra
3" ILGWU (Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.) v N L.R.B., 336 U S
731, 739, see also Old King Cole, Inc, v . N L R.B, 260 F 2d 530, 532
(C A 6)
35 Moreover , Respondent contends , it was justified in dealing with
CWA for this " accretion " even if a "successorship " be found to exist
36 See DeGeorge Transfer & Storage Co , 143 N LRB 83, 85
FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION 477
3. All reproduction employees, including clerks, em-
ployed by Respondent at the Manned Spacecraft Center,
Houston, Texas, who are engaged in the satellite quick-
copy operation, excluding all guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors defined in the Act,
constitute and at all times material herein constituted a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. OPE, on and since July 1, 1966, has been and is the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
bargaining unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. On and since July 7, 1966, by refusing to bargain
with OPE as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. On and since July 1, 1966, by refusing to reinstate
Harold Barrett, Lesbia C. Cardenas, Norma Grubbs,
Shirley Howard, Barbara Johnson, Rita Kinman, Marie
Louise Ozban, Betty Lou Presson, Sue Reagan, Velma
Ross, Carolyn M. Taylor, Treasa Taylor, Geneese Tol-
bert, and Mrs. Billie Webster without bargaining with
OPE on their reinstatement, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
8. By the conduct described in the preceding three
paragraphs, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
10. Except for the foregoing, Respondent has com-
mitted no unfair labor practices under the Act.
THE REMEDY
respectfully suggest that , in the instant case - considering
that Respondent 's conduct accorded with its past, non-
union-related hiring practices - the discriminatees herein
might not have been reinstated after bargaining. I am
aware of the cases which construct and which authorize
the construction of a remedy restoring the status quo
ante,37 but I suggest that we here have a case which may
call for a deviation from a hard and fast rule.38 I submit
that the purposes of the Act would be served by requiring
Respondent to express a willingness to bargain over the
reinstatement , to award backpay to run until it does so,
and to leave the question of reinstatement to the bargain-
ing table. I shall, therefore , recommend that Respondent
express a willingness to bargain over the question of rein-
stating the 14 individuals and that, from the dates of the
refusals to hire them until there is such expression, they
be made whole by the payment of backpay , at the rate of
pay they were receiving on June 30, with interest at 6 per-
cent per annum , computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner heretofore established by the Board.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act by recognizing and entering into a con-
tract with CWA and by enforcing and maintaining that
contract , I shall recommend that it cease and desist from
enforcing and maintaining such contract and withdraw
and withhold all recognition from CWA or any successor
as the collective-bargaining representative of these em-
ployees unless and until such labor organization shall
have been certified by the Board.
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
are of a character striking at the roots of employee rights
safeguarded by the Act, I shall also recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any
manner on the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following:
Having found that Respondent has engaged and is en-
gaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize OPE as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of its employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to accord such recognition and to bargain with
OPE.
On the authority of the Chemrock case, the General
Counsel seeks an order calling for the reinstatement, with
backpay, of the alleged discriminatees herein. I have
found that the unemployment (i.e , the failure to be rein-
stated) of the 14 of the 15 constituted an unlawful refusal
to bargain, and I shall recommend appropriate action. I
note that in Chemrock the Board believed, in effect, that,
had the retention of the alleged discriminatees there been
a subject of bargaining, they would have been retained at
least until the employer's bargaining obligation had been
fulfilled and that they might well have never been ter-
minated; and reinstatement with backpay was ordered. I
91 See Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation , 138 NLRB 550, enfd
sub nom East Bay Union of Machinists , Local 1304, U S A , AFL-CiO
v N L R B, 322 F 2d411 (C A D C ),affd 379 U S 203
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Federal Electric Corporation , of Paramus , New Jersey,
its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Office and
Professional Employees International Union „AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of its employees in a bar-
gaining unit consisting of its reproduction employees, in-
cluding clerks , employed at the Manned Spacecraft
Center, Houston , Texas, who are engaged in the satellite
quick-copy operation , excluding all guards, watchmen,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Recognizing Communications Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 6222, AFL-CIO , or any successor thereto, as
the representative of these employees for the purpose of
bargaining collectively concerning conditions of employ-
ment , unless and until said labor organization shall have
been certified by the Board as the exclusive representa-
tive of such employees.
(c) Enforcing or maintaining its collective -bargaining
agreement with Communications Workers of America,
" See Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Mansfeld Plant), 150
NLRB 1574, Shell Oil Company, 149 NLRB 283
478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 6222 , AFL-CIO, entered into on or about August
31, 1966 , or any modifications , extentions , supplements,
or renewals thereof , insofar as it applies to these em-
ployees, unless and until said labor organization shall
have been certified by the Board as the exclusive
representative of said employees ; provided that nothing
herein shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary
wages, hours, seniority , or other substantive features of
such employees ' working conditions which may have
been established pursuant to said collective -bargaining
agreement.
(d) In any other manner , interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or
assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with Office and
Professional Employees International Union , AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the above -described unit.
(b) As part of the fulfillment of its bargaining obliga-
tion referred to above , express its willingness to bargain
with Office and Professional Employees International
Union , AFL-CIO, over the reinstatement of Harold Bar-
rett, Lesbia C. Cardenas , Norma Grubbs, Shirley
Howard, Barbara Johnson , Rita Kinman , Marie Louise
Ozbun , Betty Lou Presson , Sue Reagan , Velma Ross,
Carolyn M . Taylor, Treasa Taylor, Geneese Tolbert, and
Mrs. Billie Webster and, thereafter , bargain over the sub-
ject.
(c) For the period from July 1, 1966, until it fulfills the
obligation created by subsection (b) hereof, make each of
these individuals whole for any loss of pay, in the manner
set forth in "The Remedy" section herein.
(d) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Commu-
nications Workers of America, Local 6222 , AFL-CIO,
or any successor thereto , as bargaining representative of
the employees in the above-described unit, unless and
until said organization shall have been certified by the
Board as the exclusive representative of such employees
(e) Post copies of the attached notice marked " Appen-
dix."-" Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative , shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60'consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to Respondent's
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith .411
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
herein be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found herein.
a" 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 Ap-
peals 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 Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Office and Professional Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of our reproduction employees, in-
cluding clerks, employed at the Manned Spacecraft
Center, Houston, Texas, who are engaged in the
satellite quick-copy 'operation, excluding all guards,
watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition
from Communications Workers of America, Local
6222, AFL-CIO, as bargaining representative of
these employees, and WE WILL NOT enforce the con-
tract entered into with that labor organization on or
about August 3 1, 1966, insofar as it applies to these
employees, until that labor organization has been
certified by the Labor Board as the exclusive
representative of these employees.
WE WILL NOT, in any manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to organize; to form, join, or assist a labor
organization; to bargain collectively through a bar-
gaining representative chosen by themselves; to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion; or to refrain from any such activities.
WE WILL bargain with Office and Professional
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, over
the reinstatement of Harold Barrett, Lesbia C.
Cardenas, Norma Grubbs, Shirley Howard, Barbara
Johnson, Rita Kinman, Marie Louise Ozbun, Betty
Lou Presson, Sue Reagan, Velma Ross, Carolyn M.
Taylor, Treasa Taylor, Geneese Tolbert, and Mrs.
Billie Webster, and WE WILL pay them for any loss
suffered because of our prior failure to bargain about
the subject.
FEDERAL ELECTRIC COR-
PORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be-altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas
77002, Telephone 228-0611.