Golden Bear Ford

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DIl('ISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Golden Bear Motors, Inc., d/b/a Golden Bear Ford
and Automobile Salesmen's Union Local 1095,
United Food and Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO'
Weatherford Motors, Inc. and Automobile Salesmen's
Union Local 1095, United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO
Gil Ashcom Toyota and Automobile Salesmen's Union
Local 1095, United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO
Berkeley Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. and Automobile
Salesmen's Union Local 1095, United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO
Weatherford Motors, Inc. and East Bay Automotive
Council. Cases 32-CA-264 (formerly 20-CA
13123), 32 CA-299 (formerly 20-CA-13204). 32-
CA-301 (formerly 20-CA-13210), 32-CA-302
(formerly 20 CA-13211). and 32 CA 366 (for-
merly 20 CA 13354)
September 25, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 17, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Earl-
dean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Golden
Bear Ford, Gil Ashcom Toyota, and Berkeley Lin-
coln-Mercury, Inc., filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, Respondent Weatherford Motors. Inc., filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief; and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.2
' The name of the (Charging Party, formerly Automobile Salesmen's Union
l ocal 1095, Retail Clerks International Association. AFL-CIO. is amended
to reflect the change resulting from the merging of Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Union and Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America on June 7. 1979.
'The General Counsel contended and the Administrative Law Judge
found that Respondent Employers violated Sec. 8(a(5) of the Act by their
untimely withdrawal from the multiemployer unit and by repudiating the
collective-bargaining agreement negotiated between the employers in the
unit and the East Bay Automotive Council. Respondents excepted to this
finding. claiming that an impasse dunng negotiations justified their with-
drawals. The Administrative Law Judge declined to resolve the question of
whether there was such an impasse for, even assuming that an impasse ex-
isted, she noted that under established Board law impasse does not constitute
an unusual circumstance sufficient to justify withdrawal. We agree with the
Administrative Law Judge, particularly noting that, following the issuance of
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondents, Golden Bear Motors. Inc.,
d/b/a Golden Bear Ford: Weatherford Motors, Inc.;
Gil Ashcom Toyota; and Berkeley Lincoln-Mercury.
Inc., Berkeley, California, their officers, agents. suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, except that the at-
tached notices are substituted for those of the Admin-
istrative Law Judge.'
her Decision, the Board issued its Supplemental Decision in Charles D. Bo-
nanno Linen Service, Inc.. 243 NLRB No. 1093 (1979), wherein we reempha-
sized and fully explained why a bargaining impasse does not justify an em-
ployer's unilateral withdrawal from the multiemployer unit.
In this proceeding it was further contended that the withdrawals of three
of the four Respondents were additionally improper because they withdrew
from group bargaining only as it related to part of the unit. Three Respon-
dents withdrew as to the salesmen but continued to bargain on a multiem-
ployer basis with regard to the craft employees. A resolution of this conten-
tion requires a determination of whether all employees represented in the
group bargaining were part of one overall unit or whether, as contended by
the three Respondents. the group bargaining consisted of two separate units
lone unit of craft employees and one unit of salesmen) and that they totally,
and thus lawfull), withdrew as to one of these units. While the Administra-
tive Law Judge found that all the employees comprised a single unit. she
made no express finding of whether the withdrawals were partial and there-
fore were additionally improper. In view of our above finding. we find it
unnecessary to determine whether these withdrawals were partial or total in
finding them to have been untimely.
iThe Administrative Law Judge inadvertentl) failed to conform her no-
tices with her recommended Order. We shall modify her notices accordingly.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELA[IONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this
notice, and we intend to carry out the Order of the
Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and bargain with the East
Bay Automotive Council and its affiliates as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees engaged in the sales, mainte-
nance, painting, washing and lubricating of
new and used automobiles and trucks em-
245 NLRB No. 30
GOLDEN BEAR FORD
ployed by the employer-members of East Bay
Motor Car Dealers, Inc.. excluding office cleri-
cal employees, supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act.
WE WILL forthwith sign, or otherwise ac-
knowledge that we are bound by, the 1977-80
master agreement between the East Bay Auto-
motive Council and the East Bay Motor Car
Dealers, Inc.
WE WILL comply with the terms and condi-
tions of said agreement both retroactively and
for the balance of its terms.
GOLDEN BEAR MOTORS, INC., D/B/A
GOLDEN BEAR FORD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this
notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the
Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interefer with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and bargain with the East
Bay Automotive Council and its affiliates as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees engaged in the sales, mainte-
nance, painting, washing and lubricating of
new and used automobiles and trucks em-
ployed by the employer-members of East Bay
Motor Car Dealers, Inc., excluding office cleri-
cal employees, supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act.
WE WILL forthwith sign, or otherwise ac-
knowledge that we are bound by, the 1977-80
Master Agreement between the East Bay Auto-
motive Council and the East Bay Motor Car
Dealers, Inc.
WE WILL comply with the terms and condi-
tions of said agreement both retroactively and
for the balance of its terms.
WEATHERFORD MOTORS. INC.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EPI.OYLES
POSTED BY ORI)ER OF TlHE
NATIONAL LABOR REI.AIO()NS B)ARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunitN
to present their evidence. the National abor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this
notice, and we intend to carry out the Order of the
Board.
WE WVI.L NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and bargain with the East
Bay Automotive Council and its affiliates as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees engaged in the sales, mainte-
nance, painting, washing and lubricating of
new and used automobiles and trucks em-
ployed by the employer-members of East Ba'
Motor Car Dealers. Inc.. excluding office cleri-
cal employees, supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act.
WE WILL forthwith sign, or otherwise ac-
knowledge that we are bound by, the 197780()
master agreement between the East BaN Auto-
motive Council and the East BaN Motor Car
Dealers. Inc.
WE W' Il. comply with the terms and condi-
tions of said agreement both retroactively and
for the balance of its terms.
GtI. ASHCOM TOYOTA
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYFiES
POSTED BY ORDER OF tiltl
NATIONAL LABOR RELAII()NS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunitN
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this
notice, and we intend to carry out the Order of the
Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our emplo\ees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
301
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE witl. recognize and bargain with the East
Bay Automotive Council and its affiliates as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees engaged in the sales, mainte-
nance, paintings, washing and lubricating of
new and used automobiles and trucks em-
ployed by the employer-members of East Bay
Motor Car Dealers. Inc., excluding office cleri-
cal employees, supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act.
Wt i wil.l forthwith sign, or otherwise ac-
knowledge that we are bound by, the 1977 80
master agreement between the East Bay Auto-
motive Council and the East Bay Motor Car
Dealers. Inc.
WE WILl, comply with the terms and condi-
tions of said agreement both retroactively and
for the balance of its terms.
BERKELEY LIN(COLN-MER(CURY, INC.
DECISION
STArTEMENT OF TrH CASE
EARI.IDEAN V. S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in Oakland, California, on
December 20 22. 1977. The charge in Case 32 CA-299 was
filed by Automobile Salesmen's Union Local 1095, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL CIO (the Sales-
men's Union) on August 1, 1977, and a copy thereof was
served on Respondent Weatherford Motors, Inc. (Weather-
ford) on August 4, 1977. A first amended charge therein
was filed by the Seamen's Union on August 11. 1977, and
served on Weatherford on August 13, 1977; and a second
amended charge was filed by the Seamen's Union and
served on Weatherford on August 30, 1977. The charge in
Case 32-CA 366 was filed by Teamsters Automotive Em-
ployees Union Local 78, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, a constituent member of East Bay Automotive
Council (the Teamsters) on September 2, 1977. and a copy'
was served on Weatherford on September 3. 1977. A first
amended charge therein was filed by East Bay Automotive
Council (the council) and served on Weatherford on Octo-
ber 11, 1977.
The charge in Case 32-CA-264 was filed by the Sales-
men's Union on July 13, 1977, and a copy thereof was
served on Golden Bear Motors. Inc., d/b/a Golden Bear
Ford on July 15, 1977. The charge in Case 32-CA-301 was
filed by the Salesmen's Union on August 1, 1977. and
served on Gil Ashcom Toyota (Ashcom) on August 4, 1977.
A first amended charge was filed therein on August II,
1977, and served on Ashcom on August 13, 1977, and a
second amended charge was filed by the Salesmen's Union
and served on Ashcom on August 30, 1977. The charge in
Case 32-CA-302 was filed by the Salesmen's Union on Au-
gust 1, 1977, and served on Berkeley Lincoln-Mercury. Inc.
(Berkeley) on August 4. 1977. A first amended charge
therein was filed by the Salesmen's Union on August 11.
1977, and a copy thereof was served on Berkeley on August
13. 1977: and a second amended charge was filed by the
Salesmen's Union and served on Berkeley on August 30.
1977.
An order consolidating Cases 32 CA 264. 32-CA-299.
32 CA 301. and 32 CA 302 issued on September 29. 1977.
An order consolidating cases and a consolidated complaint
in Cases 32 CA 299 and 32-CA 366 issued on October 31.
1977: and a consolidated amended complaint in Cases 32
CA 264. 32 CA 301, and 32-CA-302 issued on November
I 1. 1977, alleging that Weatherford. Golden Bear. Ashcom.
and Berkeley. herein collectively called Respondents, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act. An order consoli-
dating the above cases issued on November 11, 1977. Post-
hearing briefk were filed by the General Counsel and by
Respondents.
The basic issue herein is whether, at the time of Respon-
dents' attempted withdrawals from the multiemployer bar-
gaining unit, there existed "unusual circumstances" of a na-
ture tojustif\ such withdrawals after the commencement of
negotiations.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the parties. I make the following:
FINDINS(; () FA( I
1. JRISI)i('riON
Each of Respondents is a California corporation with a
principal place of business in Berkeley, California, where it
is engaged in the sale and servicing of new and used auto-
mobiles.
East Bay Motor Car Dealers. Inc., herein called the asso-
ciation, is an incorporated association of employers with its
principal place of business in San Leandro. California.
which admits to membership firms engaged in the servicing
and sale of motor vehicles and which exists in part for the
purpose of negotiating, executing, and administering mul-
tiemployer collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of its
employer-members with the collective-bargaining represen-
tatives of their employees. At all times material herein, each
of Respondents has been a member of the association.
During the past calendar year each of the Respondents,
in the course and conduct of' its business operations. re-
ceived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased
and received goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess
of $50,000 which originated outside the State of California.
During the past calendar year, the employer-members of
the association, in the course and conduct of their business
operations. received gross revenues in excess of $500,000
and purchased and received goods, materials, and supplies
valued in excess of $50,000 which originated from outside
the State of California.
Upon the pleadings and the evidence, I find that the asso-
ciation and its employer-members, including Respondents,
is now, and has been at all times material herein, an em-
ployer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
302
GOLDEN BEAR FORD
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The consolidated complaints allege, and Respondents ad-
mit, that the Salesmen's Union is now, and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Upon the pleadings and the evidence. I find that the
council is an association of four labor organizations. includ-
ing the Salesmen's Union, which exists in part for the pur-
pose of negotiating, executing, and administering a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the association, and is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
ti. THE AIt.EF(;ED UNFAIR LABOR PRA('TI([-S
A. Facts
The council and the association have been parties to suc-
cessive collective-bargaining agreements since 1948. Origi-
nally the council was comprised of three labor organiza-
tions-East Bay Automotive Machinists Lodge 1546.
affiliated with the Machinists Automotive Trades District
Lodge 190 of northern California, herein called the Ma-
chinists; Auto, Marine and Specialty Painters' Union. Lo-
cal 1176, herein called the Painters: and Teamsters Auto-
motive Employees Union, Local 78, herein called the
Teamsters. The Salesmen's Union was affiliated or cooper-
ated in some respects with the council but did not become a
member until 1972. Since April 18. 1972, the council has
been the collective-bargaining agent for the Salesmen's
Union, and the Salesmen's Union participated in and was
bound by the negotiations between the council and the as-
sociation in 1974 and 1977.
In 1974 the council and the association entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement effective by its terms from
June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1977, herein called the 1974 agree-
ment. The agreement was in two parts-part 1. a master
agreement, which set forth the working conditions of the
Machinists, the Painters, and the Teamsters: and part II.
captioned "Working Agreement," which sets forth the
terms and conditions of employment of the salesmen. The
1974 agreement specifically provides that the employer rec-
ognize the council and all its affiliated unions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees who per-
form certain work described therein. Part I specifically
provides that part II is incorporated therein.
Golden Bear, Ashcom, and Berkeley were members of
the association and bound by the 1974 negotiations which
culminated in the 1974 agreement. Initially, Weatherford
was not covered by part II of the 1974 agreement.' There-
after, Weatherford entered into the following agreement:
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into the
day and date hereinafter set forth between WEATH-
ERFORD MOTORS. INC., the Employer and AU-
TOMOBILE SALESMEN'S UNION LOCAL NO.
1095, EAST BAY AUTOMOTIVE COUNCIL, the
Union.
Weatherford's 1972 application for union membership shows that i had
no employees covered under part II of the agreement.
That as of January 1. 1976, all salesmen employed
by the Employer are represented by the Union, and
that said Automobile Salesmen's Union. Local No.
1095 shall be the sole bargaining agent for said sales-
men.
That all conditions including remuneration. hours.
holidays, vacations, health and welfare benefits. pen-
sion contributions, demonstrator plans and an and all
other agreements contained in the Working Agreement
in effect between Automobile Salesmen's Union, Local
No. 1095. East Bay Automotive C(ouncil and the East
Bay Motor Car Dealers Association shall be in full
force and effect and shall apply to any and all salesmen
employed by Weatherford Motors. Inc. now or during
the terms of this Agreement.
The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1,
1976 to May 31, 1977, and any and all arrangements to
open or extend this contract shall apply as outlined in
said Agreement between Automobile Salesmen's
Union, Local No. 1095 and the East Ba, Motor ('ar
Dealers Association.
/s/ Greg Weatherford
Greg Weatherford
Fe
Weatherford Motors. Inc.
is/ Fernand D. Silva
ernand D. Silva. President
Automobile Salesmen's U'nion
l.ocal No. 1095
East Bay Automotive ('ouncil
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1974 agreement, the
council and its affiliates gave the association notice of re-
opening bh letter dated March 20. 1977., the hody of which
reads:
Pursuant to Article XXIII of the Master Agreement
titled "Effective and Anniversary Date". this commu-
nication is our official notice of opening of the collec-
tive bargaining agreement between the East Bay Auto-
motive Council and its affiliated Local Unions and the
Eastbay Motor Car Dealers. Inc. for the purpose of
negotiating amendments thereto.
In the event that the parties do not reach agreement on
proposed changes on or before June 1. 1977. ou are
hereby further notified that conferences on the aft;ore-
mentioned proposed changes shall immediately be ter-
minated and that the East Bay Automotive Council
and its affiliated Local Unions reserve the right to take
economic action.
Will you please advise when and where we may meet
for the purpose stated herein at your earliest opportu-
nity.
By letter dated March 30. the council requested that the
association furnish it with copies of all powers of attorney
I All dates herein are In 1977. unless other. Ise ndicated
303
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the association holds with each individual firm that it repre-
sents as of April 1.
Negotiations for a new agreement began on April 6, and
subsequent negotiation sessions were held on May 3, 4, 5,
11, 18, 25, and June 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 22, and 28. It is unclear
whether a negotiation session was actually held on June 25.
That is the date of the association proposal which reflected
agreements reached on June 22. Both Edward Dohnt, pres-
ident of the association, and C. L. McMonagle, chairman of'
the council, testified that they did not attend a June 25
meeting. On May 26, prior to the May 31 contract anniver-
sary date, a proposal was submitted for ratification to the
members of the council affiliates and was rejected. There-
after, mediation was sought. Although it is not completely
clear from the record, it appears that a federal mediator
participated in the June 6 session at which concessions were
made, including a compromise on the apprenticeship train-
ing. The old contract had a 6-month period. The associ-
ation proposed 36 months. They agreed on 18 months. Con-
cessions were also made at the May 26 meeting, including
agreement on new car, used car, and leasing commission
rates.
By letter dated April 12, the association provided the
council with a list of its members as of April I and notified
the council that Pat Patterson Cadillac had withdrawn from
the multiemployer bargaining unit. Respondents were listed
on this membership roster. It is undisputed that several em-
ployer-members of the association-Albany Ford, English
Motors of Berkeley, H. W. McKevitt Company, San Lean-
dro Chrysler, Nohrs Import, Pat Patterson Cadillac, Good
Leasing, and Pat Patterson Leasing Company are not cov-
ered by part II of the contract. Some of them have no sales-
men employees, and none of them have ever been part of
the multiemployer bargaining association as to salesmen
employees.'
By letter dated June 7, Golden Bear notified the associ-
ation that effective immediately it was withdrawing its
power of attorney to the association to represent it in deal-
ings with the Salesmen's Union. By letter dated June 8, the
association notified Golden Bear that the revocation of its
power of attorney was ineffective as it was not timely given
under the reopening provision of the 1974 agreement.
By letter dated June 8, Golden Bear notified the Sales-
men's Union:
You are advised herewith that Golden Bear Motors,
Inc. revoked its power of attorney to the Eastbay Mo-
tor Car Dealers, Inc. as to its authority to negotiate
with the Union. Golden Bear Motors Inc. remains a
member of the Eastbay Motor Car Dealers, Inc. for all
other purposes.
Please contact Ralph B. Hoyt of Hoyt & Goforth, 405
14th Street, Oakland, California 94612, telephone 893-
0990, who will represent Golden Bear Motors, Inc. in
contract negotiations with your Union concerning the
hours, wages and working conditions of salesmen em-
ployed by Golden Bear Motors, Inc.
It is not clear from the record whether Pat Patterson Cadillac had ever
been part of the multiemployer unit as to salesmen. It did timely withdraw
from the unit, and the Salesmen's Union has a contract with it in a single-
employer bargaining unit.
By letter dated June 13, the Salesmen's Union notified
Golden Bear that its attempted withdrawal was untimely.
On June 21, according to the minutes of an association
membership meeting held on that date, Dohnt informed the
membership that there had been limited discussions on the
salesmen's part of that contract, and as to the shop employ-
ees portion, the council was trying to secure terms compara-
ble to the San Francisco agreement. In Dohnt's opinion,
they had two choices--"to take the San Francisco proposal
with some modifications" or to "present a final proposal, sit
tight and accept a strike if we have to." He further stated
that a strike was inevitable if they offered less than a 55-
cent-an-hour increase. The membership voted on three op-
tions-propose the 55 cents an hour and "hold tight." agree
to the San Francisco proposal, or offer less than 55 cents an
hour. It was unanimously decided to submit a 55-cent pro-
posal with further negotiations on the salesmen's part of the
contract.
The association submitted a written proposal on June 22.
Various changes were negotiated on that date which are
reflected in the association proposal dated June 25 which,
on June 29, the Council submitted to the membership of its
affiliates for ratification with a recommendation to reject.'
The association's proposal was rejected by the membership,
and a previous strike vote was reaffirmed.' On June 29 the
council and its member-affiliates went on strike against the
employer-members of the association. Some unit employ-
ees, including some Weatherford employees, did not honor
the picket line.
On June 29 Golden Bear sent a letter to the Salesmen's
Union reiterating its revocation of power of attorney to the
association and further stating that since the revocation oc-
curred prior to the strike, Golden Bear was not part of the
negotiations which resulted in the strike, and therefore it
would be inappropriate for the Salesmen's Union to picket
Golden Bear since Golden Bear was prepared to negotiate
a new contract.
After the strike commenced, no negotiation session was
held until July 12.5 Arrangements for this session were
made a few days prior thereto, probably on or after July 9.
On that date representatives from the Council met with
Dohnt, at which time it became apparent that some posi-
tions were flexible, and the participants agreed to convey
this indication of flexibility to their respective negotiating
committees.
By letter dated July 5 addressed to the association, the
council, and its four affiliate-members. Weatherford gave
notice that effective immediately it was withdrawing from
the multiemployer unit and revoking its power of attorney
to the association to act as its collective-bargaining agent
and was willing to bargain only in a single employer unit.
4 According to the undenied testimony of McMonagle. the association re-
quested that the contract be submitted to the council affiliates' membership
and took the position that. if not approved. the association would not agree
to retroactivity.
I Following the initial strike vote, the member affiliates have to secure a
stnrike sanction from their respective International unions and then take a
strike reaffirmation vote before a strike can actually commence.
I Fred Silva. president of the Salesmen's Union. McMonagle, and Dohnt
met informally on July 8 or 9. at which time they explored their relative
positions as to problem areas.
304
GOLDEN BEAR FORD
Ashcom and Berkeley sent separate letters to the Sales-
men's Union dated July 8 which, in pertinent part, were
identical to the one set forth above which was sent by
Golden Bear. On that same date Ashcom and Berkeley sent
individual letters to the association revoking their powers of
attorney to the association to represent them in dealings
with the Salesmen's Union.
By letter dated July 15, the association acknowledged
Weatherford's revocation of power of attorney and notified
Weatherford that certain requirements of the association
bylaws must be met to effect resignation from the associ-
ation. By separate letters dated July 18. the association no-
tified Golden Bear,' Berkeley, and Ashcom that their revo-
cation of powers of attorney to represent them in dealings
with the Salesmen's Union was approved by the associ-
ation's board of directors at a meeting held on July 18.
Article X of the association's bylaws, as amended on
January 27, 1972, provides:
Section 1. Every person. upon joining the Associ-
ation, automatically gives, by virtue of accepting such
membership, specific powers of attorney to the Associ-
ation to act for the member in all matters having to do
with Labor relations; particularly in dealings with Au-
tomobile Salesmen's Union ocal 1095 and/or East
Bay Automotive Machinists Lodge No. 1546. Auto.
Marine and Specialty Union Local 1176, and Team-
sters Automotive Employees Union Local 78. the last
three of which are collectively called East Bay Auto-
motive Council: and every member upon joining the
Association contracts and agrees with the Association,
and with each of the other members thereof. not to
bargain collectively with any of the above-named La-
bor Organizations other than by and through the Asso-
ciation, acting pursuant to the specific powers of attor-
ney herein given and made, during such period of time
that said specific powers of attorney remain in full
force and effect and unrevoked.
Section 2. The specific powers of attorney. and each
of them, given and made pursuant to the foregoing
section and the obligation of any member to bargain
collectively by and through the Association, with the
Labor Organizations mentioned in the foregoing sec-
tion, or any of them, may be revoked and terminated
at any time by giving notice in writing to the President
or Secretary of the Association stating the intention of
such member to revoke the specific and or all powers
of attorney and terminate the member's obligation to
bargain collectively through the Association as to the
particular Labor Organization for which said specific
power is revoked. Said revocation to be effective imme-
diately upon presentation to the President or Secretary
unless otherwise set forth in said written notice.
The association's applications for membership provide,
inter alia.
I/We hereby accept and agree to all of the provi-
sions of the By-Laws of the Eastbay Motor Car Deal-
The association's attorney had advised hat the association's earlier re-
sponse to the attempted revocation was incorrect.
ers. Inc.. as adopted April 22, 1942 and amended teb-
ruary 21. 1946 and January II. 1949.:
I/ We have been furnished with a cops of these B\-
Laws as amended. and have noted provisions thereof,
During the strike, negotiation sessions were held on JulI
12, 14, and 19. A Federal mediator participated in these
sessions. Fred Silva, president of the Salesmen's Union. tes-
tified without contradiction that there was no modification
of positions during the Jul' 12 meeting. At the beginning of
the July 14 meeting, the association remained adamant ias
to its previous position. However, during the course of the
meeting the association modified its position as to the com-
mission on gross profit up from 30 percent to 35 percent.
They upped their proposal ofS 100 minimum commission to
$125. They withdrew their proposal for changes in the pro-
visions covering demonstrators and house deals. and agreed
to a pension contribution equivalent to that enjoed bh
shop employees. Further concessions and modifications
were made on July 19.
On July 20 the association's proposals were submitted to
the membership of the council affiliates and were ratified.
By separate mailgrams dated Jul, 2 1, the Salesmen's Union
notified Ashcom. Golden Bear, and Berkeley that it consid-
ered each of them bound to the new agreement since the)
were members of the association as of the commencement
of negotiations. On August 17 the Council declined
Weatherford's request to bargain in a single employer unit
and informed Weatherford that the position of the council
is that Weatherford is bound b the new agreement.
By letter dated August 25, Weatherford notified the asso-
ciation that it wished to enjoy all association benefits, ex-
cept collective bargaining, and enclosed its association dues
for the third quarter. By letter dated August 30. the associ-
ation notified Weatherford that. pursuant to its August 25
letter. the association considers it an active member and
agrees that its power to bargain on behalf of Weatherford is
revoked
The council at no time agreed to. or acquiesced in, the
attempted withdrawals of Respondents from the multiem-
ployer bargaining unit. Golden Bear. Ashcom, and Berke-
ley are abiding by that portion of the new contract which
pertains to shop employees.
B. Position of the Parties
I. Impasse
Respondents contend that their withdrawals from the
multiemployer bargaining unit were timely, that they with-
drew during a bargaining impasse, and that an impasse
should constitute such an "unusual circumstance" as would
permit withdrawal subsequent to the commencement of
bargaining. Weatherford contends that an impasse was
reached on June 22. In support thereof Weatherford argues
that the key element of the association's proposal on June
22 was the 55-cent-an-hour wage increase which the council
refused to accept, insisting on a $2.20 increase over the 3-
year term of a new contract. At the conclusion of the June
A These applications are currently used. een though the bslaws were
amended in 1972
30
I)ECISIONS )1: NATIONAL ILABOR RLA TIONS BOARD
22 session, for the first time during negotiations. no further
bargaining session was scheduled. The association's princi-
pal negotiator said 55 cents was as far as the association
would go. At a meeting on June 21 the employer-members
of the association agreed to offer 55 cents and accept a
strike if necessary. The council negotiators stated they
would recommend against ratification. Between the June 22
bargaining session and the June 29 union meeting. no seri-
ous attempt was made to resolve differences. The associ-
ation spurned such an attempt by the Salesmen's Union on
June 28. On June 29 the membership of the council affili-
ates rejected the association's proposal and voted to strike
immediately. This was the first strike during the history of
multiemployer bargaining. At the July 12 bargaining ses-
sion, there was no change in the position of the parties and
it was not until the July 14 negotiation session that the
impasse was broken. Under these circumstances. Weather-
ford contends a genuine impasse existed as of July 5. when
it withdrew from the multiemployer bargaining unit.
Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc.. 229 NLRB 629
(1977): Acme Wire orks, Inc., 229 NLRB 333 (1977):
Times Herald Printing Company, 221 NLRB 225, 229
(1975); Bill Cook Buick, Inc., 224 NLRB 1094, 1096 (1976):
Hi-Way Billboards, 206 NLRB 22 (1973); affd. in relevant
part 500 F.2d 181 (5th Cir.. 1974).
Respondents Golden Bear. Ashcom, and Toyota make
the same argument as to the existence of an impasse. except
they contend that an impasse occurred on June 29 when the
members of the council affiliates rejected the association's
final offer and proceeded to strike the employer-members of
the association, and that the impasse was not broken until
July 15.' They further argue that an impasse was reached
on May 26 when an employer proposal was rejected by the
membership of the council affiliates and the parties agreed
to use the services of a federal mediator; and that the im-
passe continued through the next negotiation session on
June 6, since there were either no concessions or no major
economic concessions on that day.' 0
Respondents argue that the Board's current position, that
an impasse does not constitute an unusual circumstance,
fails to take into account the realities of the bargaining pro-
cess and further gives unions an unfair advantage, since
unions are permitted to negotiate separate interim contracts
with employer-members of the association. Respondents
therefore urge that the reasoning of various courts of ap-
peals be followed and an impasse be considered as consti-
tuting an "unusual circumstance" which would justify a
withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit.
N.L.R.B. v. Associated Shower Door. Inc.. et al., 512 F.2d
230 (9th Cir. 1975); N.L.R.B. v. Beck Engraving Co., Inc.,
522 F.2d 475 (3d Cir. 1975); N.L.R.B. v. Hi-Way' Billboards
Inc., 500 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1974); and Fairmont Foods
Company v. N.L.R.B., 471 F.2d 1170 (8th Cir. 1972).
The General Counsel argues that I am bound by Board
decisions which reject impasse as an "unusual circum-
9 The evidence does not support this position. There was no change of
position on July 12, but there were substantial changes on July 14.
10 I find, based on Silva's undenied testimony which I credit, that on June
6 the council accepted the association's proposal of an 18-month training
program for salesmen. In the pnor contract it had been 6 months.
stance." However, even assuming arguendo a change in the
Board's position, no impasse existed at relevant times.
Thus, the General Counsel argues that only five negotiating
sessions had occurred prior to the May 25 session, no party
was suggesting an unwillingness to make further conces-
sions, at subsequent sessions additional proposals and con-
cessions were made by both sides. and there is no evidence
of hardening of positions or threats of strike or lockup.'
Accordingly, there was no impasse as of Golden Bear's
June 8 withdrawal. Firch Baking Compan o Jamestown,
Inc.. 199 NI.RB 414, 420, enfd. 479 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1973).
As to the alleged impasse of June 22 or June 29. General
Counsel argues that the Association did not characterize its
June 22 offer as a final offer and that the strike cannot be
viewed as an attempt by the Union to break a bargaining
impasse. Rather. the Association demanded a vote on their
latest proposal and threatened that it would not agree to
retroactivity if a ratification vote was not taken. Thus, the
insistence on a vote (with the resultant refusal to ratify the
Association's offer) was a bargaining tool devised by the
Association to test the employees' willingness to accept the
Association's proposal. Cf. J. H. Bonck (Conmpan, Inc.. 170
NLRB 1471, 1479 (1968). enfd. 424 F.2d 634 (5th ('ir.
1969).
Also indicating no impasse, according to the General
Counsel, are the minutes of the June 21 association meeting
which state it was "unanimously decided to submit the 55C
proposal with iirther negotiations [emphasis supplied] on
the Salesmen's Union's contract, then hold tight." 2
2. Appropriate unit
Respondents Golden Bear, Ashcom. and Berkeley con-
tend that the unit of sales and shop employees alleged in the
complaint3 is "totally inconsistent with established Board
policy and procedure." Rather, Respondents argue, all evi-
dence and testimony point to the existence of two multiem-
ployer bargaining units-a sales employee unit and a crafts
employee unit. The principal argument in support of this
position seems to be (I) the admitted method of table bar-
gaining. whereby the representatives of the Salesmen's
Union would be the chief spokesmen for the council when
the discussions centered on the provisions applicable to the
salesmen employees and took little or no part in the discus-
sions concerning the shop employees; (2) the division of the
contract into two parts-part covering the shop employ-
ees and part 11 covering the salesmen employees, and that
each part, by its language, stands alone as a total and com-
plete collective-bargaining agreement: and (3) part 11 is
signed only by the president of the Salesmen's Union and
was signed on August 30. whereas part I was signed on
November 21.
11 At some point prior to June 29 the members of the council affiliates had
voted to seek strike sanction from their respective International unions.
1 Further negotiations did occur on June 22. and concessions were made.
3 Both consolidated complaints allege: "All employees engaged in the
sales, maintenance, painting, washing and lubricating of new and used auto-
mobiles and trucks employed by the employer-members of East Bay Dealers,
excluding office clerical employees. supervisors and guards as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act."
306
GOLDEN BEAR FORD
Golden Bear, Ashcom, and Berkeley further contend that
bargaining history does not support a single multi-
employer/multiunion bargaining unit but rather demon-
strates coalition bargaining. In support thereof the) argue
that a multiemployer unit comprised of employees within
the jurisdiction of the three "craft unions" has been in exis-
tence since 1948 and that the Salesmen's Union first partici-
pated in such bargaining in the 1974 negotiations which
resulted in the 1974 77 agreement.
Also supporting their position, it is argued, is the fact
that the association has consistently recognized two units in
article X of its bylaws and that all member firms are parties
to part I of the master agreement, whereas 7 of the 39 mem-
bers are not parties to part 1'A and that during the course
of council-association negotiations, members of the council
engaged in separate negotiations with several of these
firms."
They further argue that "there is no evidence of any com-
mon element looked to by the Board in establishing a com-
mon unit of 'craft' employees and 'sales' employees and
that to find a single unit would be contrary to Section 9(b)
wherein recognized crafts shall be allowed the right of self-
determination. Thus, absent a certification based upon ap-
propriate election processes conducted by the Board. there
can be no finding of a single multi-employer/multiunion
bargaining unit consisting of the 'crafts' and 'salesmen.'"
3. Unit fragmentation
Golden Bear. Ashcom, and Berkeley further argue that
there had been a unit fragmentation which would constitute
an unusual circumstance which would allow an employer to
withdraw from a multiemployer bargaining unit. However.
no specific evidence is argued as supporting this contention
other than the above argument involving the association
members whose salesmen employees have never been a part
of the multiemployer unit and the separate contract with
Pat Patterson Cadillac, who timely withdrew.
and 1977 negotiations bargaining in such a unit culminated
in collective-bargaining agreements. Although the contract
is in two parts part I covering shop employees and part 11
covering sales employees part I specifically states: "Part I1
of the collective bargaining agreement coers the Automo-
bile Salesmen's Union No. 1095 contract and the terms and
conditions of Part 11 are fully incorporated herein hb refer-
ence thereto." Parts I and II both specifically state that the
agreement is between the association and the council and
its affiliates. The council and its affiliates are referred to in
the agreement as the "Union." Article II of part I states the
employer hereby agrees to recognize the union as the sole,
exclusive bargaining agent, and this agreement shall cover
all employees of the employer who perform work within the
work jurisdiction of the union as described therein. The
agreement then sets forth the work jurisdiction of the Ma-
chinists, the Painters, the Teamsters. and the Salesmen's
Unions. The members of the council affiliates collectiel
vote to accept or reject a proposed contract in accordance
with the specific provision of the council blaws.
Clearly, there exists a bargaining history in the unit al-
leged as appropriate in the complaint. Such established bar-
gaining relationship will not be disturbed where it is not
repugnant to the policies of' the Act. Frcarer & Johlnson
C(onipanv, 189 NLRB 142, 151 (1971). There is nothing re-
pugnant to the policies of the Act in combining shop and
sales employees in one unit. In fact. the Board has found
such a unit appropriate. Bogalusa ,M[otors. Inc.. et al.. 107
NLRB 97 (1953). Furthermore. contrary to Respondent's
contentions, the Board's rules as to craft severance are not
applicable here. See C(onrolidaed Papers. Inc.. 220 NI.RB
1281, 1283 (1975).
Accordingly. I find that the appropriate unit herein is:
All employees engaged in the sales, maintenance.
painting, washing and lubricating of new and used au-
tomobiles and trucks employed by the emplo) er-mem-
bers of East Bay Motor (Car Dealers. Inc.. excluding
office clerical employees. supervisors and guards as de-
fined in the Act.
C. Conclusions
1. The appropriate unit
I find no merit in the contention that the unit alleged
herein is inappropriate. In 1972 the council and the associ-
ation consented to a multiemployer/multiunion bargaining
unit comprised of shop and salesmen employees. In 1974
14 The only evidence to support this later contention is the testimony that
the Salesmen's Union has a separate contract with Pat Panlerson Cadillac.
However. Pat Patterson Cadillac timely withdrew from the multiemployer
unit.
" Silva credibly testified that those employer-members who are not bound
by part II of the agreement have never been so bound and that they either
have no salesmen employees or the Salesmen's Union never represented the
salesmen employees. Hence they never had salesmen employees as part of
the multiemployer bargaining unit after the unit was expanded to include
salesmen employees. Dean Corbitt, executive vice president, secretary, and
manager of the association, credibly testified that when a new member joins
the association it is presumed that all shop and sales employees are covered
by the master agreement unless there is some affirmative indication to the
contrary. Pnor to the 1977 negotiations Silsa agreed that one specific new
member would not be covered as to salesmen employees. However, the
chairman of the council did not agree, and the matter was not pursued.
2. The attempted withdraswals
There is no dispute that Respondents consented to be
bound by multiemployer/multiunion bargaining. The ques-
tion is whether they timely withdrew from such unit. Once
the multiemployer unit is established, the employer-mem-
bers and the Union are bound by multiemployer bargain-
ing, absent compliance with the rules governing withdrawal
from such bargaining set forth by the Board in Retail A-sso-
ciales. Inc.. 120 NLRB 388. 393 -395 (1958).
In Retail Associates the Board stated "wvhile mutual con-
sent of the union and employers involved is a basic ingredi-
ent supporting the appropriateness of a multiemployer bar-
gaining unit, the stability requirement of the Act dictates
that reasonable controls limit the parties as to the time and
manner that withdrawal will be permitted from an estah-
lished multiemployer bargaining unit." Accordingly. the
Board held that prior to the date set hb the contract for
modification, or to the agreed-upon date to commence ne-
gotiations, withdrawal can be affected only b an unequivo-
cal written notice expressing a sincere intent to abandol.
307
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with relative permanency, the multiemployer unit, and to
embrace a different course of bargaining on an individual
employer basis. Once actual bargaining negotiations based
on the existing multiemployer bargaining unit have begun,
withdrawal can be affected only on the basis of "mutual
consent" or when "unusual circumstances" are present.
It is undisputed that the attempted withdrawals occurred
after the commencement of negotiations and that no "mu-
tual consent exists." Respondents, relying on the court of
appeals cases cited above, argue that the withdrawals oc-
curred during a bargaining impasse and that such impasse
constitutes an "unusual circumstance" which would permit
withdrawal. However, I am bound by the decisions of the
Board, Insurance Agents International Union, AFL CIO
(The Prudential Insurance Company of America), 119 NLRB
768 (1957), and the Board has consistently rejected the con-
tention that a bargaining impasse constitutes the requisite
"unusual circumstances."
In cases subsequent to Retail Associates the Board has
limited application of the term "unusual circumstances" to
"those cases in which the withdrawing employer has been
faced with dire economic circumstances, i.e., circumstances
in which the very existence of an employer as a viable busi-
ness entity has ceased or is about to cease." Hi-Way Bill-
boards, Inc., 206 NLRB 22 (1973). Applying this limitation,
the Board held in that case (206 NLRB at 23, 24):
Thus, a genuine impasse is akin to a hiatus in nego-
tiations. In the overall ongoing process of collective
bargaining, it is merely a point at which the parties
cease to negotiate and often resort to forms of eco-
nomic persuasion to establish the primacy of their ne-
gotiating position. Moreover, the occurrence of a genu-
ine impasse cannot be said to be an unexpected,
unforeseen, or unusual event in the process of negotia-
tions since no experienced negotiator arrives at the
bargaining table with absolute confidence that all of
his proposals will be readily and completely accepted.
Therefore, it is clear that an impasse is but one threat
in the complex tapestry of collective bargaining, rather
than a bolt of a different hue. In short, a genuine im-
passe is not the end of collective bargaining.
For this reason, a genuine impasse in negotiations
between a union and multiemployer bargaining associ-
ation does not constitute an "unusual circumstance"
within the meaning of that term as applied by us in
cases subsequent to Retail Associates. A genuine im-
passe in such a situation does not call into question the
actual continued existence of any multiemployer bar-
gaining association member as a viable business entity.
Rather, it is merely a momentary eddy in the flow of
collective bargaining. Were we to hold otherwise, we
would be denying the practical reality of collective-
bargaining negotiations, we would herald the demise of
multiemployer bargaining, we would effectively negate
the benefits of such bargaining to all parties and to
employees, and we would allow an employer to seize
upon such an occurrence and use it as a ground for
withdrawal merely because it was dissatisfied with the
impending agreement, as Hi-Way did in the instant
case. Consequently, we hold that it would not effectu-
ate the purpose or policies of the Act to allow an em-
ployer member of such an association to withdraw
solely on the ground that an impasse in negotiations
has been reached.
Notwithstanding rejection by four circuits, the Board has
adhered to this rule. Bill Cook Buick, 224 NLRB 1094
(1976). therefore find it unnecessary to reach the question
of whether an impasse actually existed, and I reject Re-
spondent's argument that its attempted withdrawal was
permissible due to "unusual circumstances."
Accordingly. I find that each Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act by refusing to recognize the
council as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the above-described appropriate unit: that Re-
spondent Weatherford violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
refusing to execute or to abide by the terms and conditions
of the 1977 master agreement-part I and part II: and that
Respondents Golden Bear, Ashcom. and Berkeley violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act by refusing to execute or
to abide by part II of the 1977 master agreement.
CONCILUSIONS F LAW
I. The East Bay Motor Car Dealers, Inc., and its em-
ployer-members, including Respondents, are employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of' the Act.
2. Automobile Salesmen's Union Local 1095, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL CIO, and the East
Bay Automotive Council and its affiliates are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees engaged in the sales, maintenance,
painting, washing, and lubricating of new and used auto-
mobiles and trucks employed by the employer-members of
East Bay Motor Car Dealers, Inc., excluding office clerical
employees, supervisors and guards as defined in the Act.
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of' collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein the council and its affili-
ates have been, and are now, the exclusive representatives
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By withdrawing recognition from the East Bay Auto-
motive Council and its affiliates as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondents' employees in the
multiemployer unit described above, and by repudiating all
or a part of the collective-bargaining agreement between
East Bay Automotive Council and East Bay Motor Car
Dealers, Inc., each of the Respondents has engaged in, and
is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THIE REMEDY
Having found that each of the Respondents has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)( ) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respon-
dents be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from
308
GOLDEN BE,
any like or related unfair labor practices and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
I have found that each Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by its untimely withdrawal from
the multiemployer bargaining unit and by repudiating the
collective-bargaining agreement between the East Bay Au-
tomotive Council and the East Bay Motor Car Dealers, Inc.
I shall therefore recommend that each of the Respondents
recognize the East Bay Automotive Council and its affili-
ates as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the multiemployer bargaining unit found appro-
priate herein, that it sign or otherwise acknowledge that it is
bound by the 1977-80 master agreement-part I and part
II--between the East Bay Automotive Council and the
East Bay Motor Car Dealers, Inc., and that it comply with
the terms and conditions of said agreement, both retroac-
tively and for the balance of its term.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,. conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 6
Respondents Golden Bear Motors, Inc., d/b/a Golden
Bear Ford, Weatherford Motors, Inc., Gil Ashcom Toyota,
and Berkeley Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
J" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
309
(a) Refusing to recognize the East Bay Automotive
Council and its affiliates as the exclusive representative of
its employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and
refusing to acknowledge that it is bound by the 1977-80
master agreement between the East Bay Automotive Coun-
cil and the East Bay Motor Car Dealers. Inc.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Forthwith sign. or otherwise acknowledge, that it is
bound by the 1977-80 master agreement between the East
Bay Automotive Council and the East Bay Motor Car
Dealers, Inc., as it applies to employees of Respondent in
the above-described multiemployer bargaining unit, and
comply therewith as indicated in the remedy section of this
Decision.
(b) Post at its facilities in Berkeley, California, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 32, after being duly signed by Respondent's represent-
ative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places. including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
" In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals. the words In the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board".