Hart Motor Express, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 382 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hart Motor Express, Inc. and General Drivers
Local 120, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America
Office & Professional Employees
International Union , Local 12, AFL-CIO
(Hart Motor Express, Inc.) and General
Drivers Local 120 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Cases 18-CA-2207 and 18-CB-265.
May 5, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On September 29, 1966, Trial Examiner David
London issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged
in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter each Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief, and the Charging Union filed an
answering brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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, the briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor-
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that Respondent Hart Motor Express,
Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , and Respondent Office &
Professional Employees International Union, Local
12, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.
' The Respondent Union has requested oral argument. As the
record , including the briefs of the parties , adequately presents the
issues and the positions of the parties , the request is hereby
denied.
2 In adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings , we do not rely on
any part of George's testimony that was stricken from the record.
This includes a conclusory statement that the employees became
very upset when they heard that the March 24 negotiation
meeting had been canceled and also a statement by a Board agent
to George as to her obligation as a job stewardess to attend the
March 29 negotiation meeting.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CSE
DAVID LONDON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge and an
amended charge in Case 18-CA-2207 filed on April 4 and
May 16, 1966, respectively, by General Drivers Local 120,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called
Teamsters), and a charge filed May 16, 1966, by the
Teamsters in Case 18-C B-265, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting
Regional Director for Region 18, on May 23, 1966,
consolidated said proceedings and issued a consolidated
complaint alleging that Hart Motor Express, Inc.
(Respondent Employer) had engaged in violations of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (herein called the Act), and that
Office & Professional Employer's office employees which
contract contains a valid union-security clause and which
contract was executed "notwithstanding the fact that the
Respondent Employer and Respondent Union each knew
at the time of execution of said contract that Respondent
Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
employees in the above-described unit ." By their separate
answers, each Respondent admitted most of the factual
allegations of the complaint but denied that at the time of
the execution of the contract aforementioned it had
knowledge that the Respondent Union did not represent
an uncoerced majority of the employees covered by said
contract, and denied that it had engaged in any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice duly served, a hearing was held in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, on July 19, 1966. All parties were
represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to present relevant evidence, oral argument, and to
file briefs. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and both
Respondents have been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs
of the parties, and my observation of the demeanor of each
of the witnesses appearing before me, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
Respondent Employer is, and at all times material
herein has been, engaged in the freight hauling business,
with offices and freight terminal at St. Paul, Minnesota. Its
operations constitute an integral link in the handling and
transportation of freight and merchandise across State
boundaries. During its past fiscal year, which period is
representative of all times material herein, Respondent
Employer, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, derived gross income in excess of $50,000 for
furnishing interstate transportation services. All the
parties hereto admit, and I find, that Respondent
Employer is now and at all times material herein has been
164 NLRB No. 60
HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC.
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent Union and the Teamsters are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent Employer has approximately 300
employees all of whom are represented by labor
unions-the drivers by the Teamsters, the mechanics by
the Machinists, and the office employees by Respondent
Union. With respect to the office employees, the only
group with which we are concerned, the testimony is
undisputed that Respondent Union has been their
collective-bargaining representative since about 1950
when it was so certified following a Board-conducted
election. The most recent contract between the parties,
other than the one here under attack, was effective from
April 1, 1963, to and including March 31, 1966. To achieve
this 1963 agreement, Federal and State conciliation
services were called upon for assistance. Full agreement
was not reached, however, until after the expiration of the
prior contract. The 1963 agreement, as well as its
predecessor contract executed in 1960, was submitted to,
and ratified by, the membership of Respondent Union
before execution thereof.
Donald R. Hilliker, business manager of Respondent
Union, testified that early in March 1966, he met with the
unit, bargaining committee, drafted a proposed contract,
and, between March 12 and 15, submitted the proposal to
Respondent Employer. Due to an extremely heavy
workload occasioned by the Union's other units, Hilliker
failed to schedule a negotiation meeting with the Company
for any date prior to March 23. Because of an unusual
heavy snowfall during the previous night which paralyzed
all traffic, the March 23 meeting was canceled early that
morning and rescheduled for March 24. During the
morning of March 24, Hilliker's wife called Bernice L.
George, Respondent Union's shop steward, told her that
Hilliker had hurt his back shoveling snow the day before,
and that the meeting scheduled for that day had been
canceled. She further informed George that the meeting
would be rescheduled for Thursday of the following week,
March 31, the expiration date of the existing bargaining
agreement.
During the morning of March 24 when several office
employees asked George why she "wasn't in negotiations"
she told them that Hilliker had canceled the meeting, an
announcement which caused the employees to "become
very upset." They complained to George not only about
the delay in negotiations, but also because Hilliker had
failed to respond to their earlier telephone calls and failed
to process their grievances. At least two employees told
George they wanted the Teamsters to represent them and
asked her how to go about it.
George contacted Darby Peterson, an organizer for the
Teamsters, told him what had taken place, and "how the
employees felt." Peterson told her he did not know
anything about "decertification papers" but that she had
to have "some kind of a petition and . a majority."
George immediately prepared and signed the following
petition:
March 24,1966
383
We the following wish to desert from Office
Employees ' Union Local 12, AFL-CIO Mpls.
Minnesota.
George circulated the document in the office and, by 12:45
p.m. of that day, secured the signatures thereto of 17 other
office employees.
At Peterson's suggestion , George called the Board's
Regional Office for procedural advice and was told that "it
was up to Mr. Peterson to have his cards signed."
George met Peterson the evening of March 24, showed
him the aforementioned petition , and received a supply of
cards designating the Teamsters as collective-bargaining
representative. During the morning of Friday, March 25,
she distributed the Teamsters cards to the office
employees and, by 2:30 or 3 p.m. of the same day, cards
bearing the signatures of 19 office employees out of a total
of 26 members in the unit were returned to her. She
delivered the 19 cards to Peterson on the following
Monday, March 28.
In the meantime , on Friday, March 25, Peterson sent a
telegram to George Hart, President of Respondent
Employer, reading as follows:
DEAR SIR-WE OF LOCAL #120 GENERAL DRIVERS
HELPERS AND TRUCK TERMINAL EMPLOYEES REPRE-
SENT A VAST MAJORITY OF YOUR OFFICE EMPLOYEES.
FOLLOWING APRIL 1, 1966 WE WOULD LIKE TO MEET
WITH YOU TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR THESE
EMPLOYEES. THANKING YOU I REMAIN-
DARBY D PETERSON ORGANIZER CENTRAL
CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTER-
GENERAL DRIVERS LOCAL 120 320 UNIV AVE ST
PAUL MINN-
About 3 p.m. of March 28, Hilliker called George and
told her that Hart had called him requesting a negotiation
meeting on the following morning and that Hart would
personally participate therein. George told Hilliker that
she had just delivered the Teamsters cards to that
organization and that she did not know whether she would
be "jeopardizing" the rights of the Teamsters card signers
by attending the proposed meeting, but that she would call
O'Connell, a labor board employee with whom she had
previously been in contact. She made that call and was
informed it was her obligation to attend the negotiation
meeting. She so advised Hilliker and a meeting was
arranged for the following morning at 9 o'clock.
In attendance at the meeting on March 29, were
Hilliker, George, and Aletha Caven, on behalf of
Respondent Union; Max Durand, a labor relations
consultant, appeared in behalf of Respondent Employer.
When George asked why Hart was not present, Durand
merely stated that Hart would not attend the meeting.
Durand informed Hilliker of the Teamsters telegram of
March 25 and asked Hilliker whether he had authority to
negotiate a contract. Hilliker replied affirmatively. The
discussions commenced with a reading of the opening
paragraph of Respondent Union's proposal aforementioned
at which time George interjected that Hart had failed to
appear as promised, and that it was "utterly ridiculous to
... try to negotiate a contract" with Hilliker when the
employees did not want him as their representative and
that it was necessary that Hart participate in the meeting.
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the discussion, George stated "that she could stall
the negotiations until mid -night March 31 ... and at that
point the Teamsters would automatically take over."
Durand tried to reach Hart but was unable to do so and the
parties recessed for lunch.
The suggested meeting, with at least 18 office
employees in attendance , was called about noon of the
following day, March 30, with George presiding. She
informed the employees that Hilliker wanted to talk to
them and Hilliker did so. He admitted that there was
"unhappiness" among the employees over the delay in
handling their grievances but asserted he felt he had done
a good job for them, and would continue to do so in the
future. George asked the employees whether any of them
desired to speak in Hilliker's behalf and no one responded.
She next asked whether anyone present "would like to
change their decision for the Teamsters," and again no
one responded. George testified that at this point Hilliker
"just flew out of the office."
During the evening of that day, March 30, Hilliker made
arrangements to meet with Durand on the following day
but did not notify either George or Caven, both of whom
had attended the earlier negotiation meeting as the unit's
duly designated bargaining committee. Instead, Hilliker
alone met with Durand and Hart during the following
morning and discussed the Respondent Union's proposal.
The negotiations continued through the lunch period
following which Respondent Employer presented an
"entire package offer" including new wage and fringe
benefits. Hilliker asked for a recess to study and analyze
the offer following which he asked for a further recess to
enable him to contact not the unit's bargaining committee,
but his International office. He called that office and was
advised to accept the offer and to sign the contract. He
then made arrangement to have the contract prepared by
his office after the usual work hours.
Hilliker met again with Hart and Durand at 9:50 p.m. at
which time Hilliker and Hart executed the agreement in
behalf of the respective parties. The agreement,
containing a valid union - security clause requiring
membership in the Respondent Union, and a checkoff
provision, was to be effective from 12:01 a.m. of the
following morning, April 1, 1966, to and including midnight
of March 31, 1969. Contrary to past practice, however, the
contract was never submitted to the membership of
Respondent Union for ratification.
On April 1, the Teamsters filed a petition with the Board
seeking certification as representative of Respondent
Employer's office employees and wired Respondent
Employer that it was willing to prove its majority status by
a "show of cards." Respondent Employer made no reply
thereto.
As previously indicated, it is the contention of the
General Counsel that Respondent Employer violated the
Act by bargaining , executing , and maintaining in effect a
collective-bargaining agreement with a known minority
incumbent union, and that Respondent Union violated the
Act by accepting bargaining authority, and executing a
new agreement, when it knew it no longer possessed
authority to do so. Both Respondents contend that under
the revised contract bar rules established by the Board in
Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995,
1000-01, the complaint herein should be dismissed. The
rule relied on by Respondents establishes a "60 day
insulated period immediately preceding and including the
' Kenrich Petrochemicals , Inc., supra, 916, fn. 10
expiration date of an existing contract ... during which
the parties may negotiate and execute a new and amended
agreement without the intrusion of a rival petition." On the
entire record, and for the reasons that follow, I conclude
that the Board by its decision in Deluxe Metal never
contemplated or intended indiscriminate application of the
aforementioned rule, and certainly not to the facts
presented herein.
Though the briefs of both Respondents lend an aura of
plausibility to their contention that Deluxe Metal requires
dismissal of the instant proceeding, I am unable to believe
or conclude that under any and all circumstances, and
regardless of how grossly derelict or malfeasant a union
may become in the performance of its duties and
obligations as collective-bargaining representative during
the last 60 days of its contract term,the Board intended, by
its Deluxe Metal decision, to foreclose employees from
then discharging that union as their future representative
and instead to shackle them for a further 3-year term with
a representative that they do not want. Such
indiscriminate application of Deluxe Metal would do
violence to the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7
of the Act.
Here, the employees' dissatisfaction with representation
by the incumbent Respondent Union came to a climax on
March 24 when, a week before their existing contract was
to expire, they learned that no negotiations for a future
contract had yet taken place. This neglect was
undoubtedly, and justifiably so, a matter of the utmost and
grave concern to the employees, especially in view of the
fact that in 1960 and 1963 Federal and State authorities
had to be called upon before negotiations were completed.
That the broad and indiscriminate application of Deluxe
Metal invoked by Respondents was not intended by the
Board is clearly made apparent by its recent and later
decision in Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., 149 NLRB 910.
There, the employer had a collective-bargaining
agreement with an incumbent union which expired on
December 31, 1963. On December 20, 1963, when the
union no longer represented a majority of the employees, it
entered into a new contract with the employer for a 2-year
term beginning January 1, 1964. Though the employer
invoked the 60-day insulated period doctrine of Deluxe
Metal as a defense,' the Board nevertheless found and
concluded that by executing the December 20 contract
both the employer and the union had violated the Act. It so
found and concluded, as I do herein, because at the time
the contract in question was executed, "both the Company
and the Union knew that the Union did not represent a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit."
City Cab, Inc., 128 NLRB 493, upon which both
Respondents ?ely, is distinguishable and inapposite.
There, the contract with the incumbent union expired on
March 31, 1959. On the previous January 14, prior to the
beginning of the insulated period, a rival union "claimed to
represent the employees" in the unit involved. On
January 27, the incumbent union sent a letter to the
employer seeking to reopen the contract for purposes of
negotiating certain modifications. Negotiations ensued
and, some time between March 24 and April 1, the
employer and the incumbent union executed a 3-year
contract effective April 1. Because the rival union had
failed within the period prescribed by Deluxe Metal to file
a timely petition seeking to establish its claimed majority
status, the Board found that the employer had not violated
the Act. What was lacking there, and present in the case
before me, is evidence that before the contract was
HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC.
executed, the incumbent union had been shorn of its
authority to negotiate the new agreement in behalf of the
employees involved.
It being undisputed here that the employees had, on
March 24, repudiated Respondent Union, there remains
for consideration only the ultimate question of whether or
not, on March 31, 1966, when they negotiated and
executed their contract for the term beginning on the
following day, both Respondents knew that prior thereto
the employees had rejected the Respondent Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
Hart, president of Respondent Employer, testified that
on March 24, the day that a majority of the employees in
the unit signed the petition repudiating the Union, he was
informed by Westberg, his office manager, that a petition
had been circulated by his employees. Though Hart
testified that he "had no way of knowing" whether a
majority of the employees signed the petition and "had no
knowledge of what the petition was about," he admitted
that on April 18, 1966, less than a month after the event, he
gave an affidavit to a Board investigator in which he stated
that on March 24, following his conversation with
Westberg, he "understood the purpose of the petition was
to get rid of the union representing the employees and to
get another union in. I understood that a majority of the
employees had signed a petition." On the entire record,
and my observation of Hart while testifying, I find that on
and after March 24, Respondent Employer knew that
Respondent Union did not represent a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit.2
I further find that on and after March 25, Respondent
Union also knew that it had been repudiated and rejected
as collective-bargaining representative by the employees
in question for the period commencing April 1, 1966.
Hilliker admitted that on March 25-George told him "that
the employees were signing a petition for the Teamsters."
He also admitted that at the morning meeting on
March 29, in her endeavor to prevent negotiations by
Respondent Union in behalf of the employees, George told
him and Durand "that she could stall the negotiations until
midnight, March 31, which was the expiration date and
time of the contract, and at the point the Teamsters then
would automatically take over." As an experienced union
official, Hilliker must have realized that the Teamsters
could not "take over" on April 1 unless Respondent Union
had been displaced as collective-bargaining representative
by a majority of the employees in the unit. It is also
undisputed that at the afternoon meeting of March 29,
George told Hart, with Hilliker present, that a "majority"
of the employees had signed Teamsters cards. When
asked what he understood George to mean when she told
him on March 29 before negotiations could be undertaken
by the Respondent Union he had to "reestablish" himself
with the employees, Hilliker testified: "Having knowledge
of this petition already, she meant I had to sell myself to
the employees in order for them to continue representation
with our organization." Finally, when asked why
execution of the contract was rushed through during the
evening of March 31, he testified: "The knowledge of the
petition on this thing, and with reference to the Teamsters
organization, it behooved us to get the contract signed
within the expiration date, we were in the insulation
period."
IV. THE REMEDY
385
It having been found that the Respondents have
engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended
that they be required to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action.
It will be recommended that the Respondent Employer
be ordered to withdraw all recognition from the
Respondent Union as the representative of its office
employees, and that the Respondent Union be ordered to
cease acting as such representative, unless and until the
Respondent Union shall have demonstrated its majority
status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the
Respondent Employer's employees. It will also be
recommended that the Respondent Employer be ordered
to cease giving force and effect to, and that the
Respondent Union be ordered to cease seeking to enforce,
their collective-bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966.
However, nothing contained herein shall be construed as
requiring the Respondent Employer to vary the wage,
hour, seniority, or other substantive terms of employment,
which the Respondent Employer has established in the
performance of said contract, or to prejudice the assertion
by its employees of any right that they may have
thereunder.
In addition, as it has been found that the aforesaid
contract, contains a union-shop and checkoff provision, it
will be recommended that both Respondents be required
jointly and severally to reimburse those employees of the
Respondent Employer who became members of the Union
after the execution of said contract for moneys paid by
them, if any, or deducted from their earnings, if any, for
initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of
membership in the Respondent Union. Interest on such
moneys at 6 percent per annum is to be paid in accord with
the Board's decision in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, the amount of such interest to be computed in
the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of
North America,138 NLRB 1142.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Hart Motor Express, Inc., is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Office & Professional Employees International
Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing the Respondent Union as sole
bargaining representative of its office employees, and
executing a contract with it covering such employees, at a
time when it did not represent the majority of such
employees, and by maintaining such contract in effect, the
Respondent Employer has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act.
4. By including in such contract a union-security
clause, the Respondent Employer has violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
5. By executing and maintaining such contract in
effect, the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and the foregoing
2 Respondent Employer, in its brief , makes no contention that it as collective -bargaining representative. Its sole defense rests on
was without knowledge that Respondent Union had been ousted the Deluxe Metal insulated period doctrine.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended
that:
A. Respondent Hart Motor Express, Inc., of St. Paul,
Minnesota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support to Respondent Union, or to any
other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing Office & Professional Employees
International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of its office employees for the purpose of
dealing with the Respondent Employer concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions or terms of employment,
unless and until the said labor organization shall have
demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among the Respondent
Employer's office employees.
(c) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent Union dated March 31, 1966, or to any
extension, renewal, or modification thereof; provided,
however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to require
the Respondent Employer to vary or abandon any wage,
hour, seniority, or other substantive term of employment
established under such agreement, or to prejudice the
assertion by employees of any rights they may have
thereunder.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by a valid
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Office
& Professional Employees International Union, Local 12,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its office employees for the purposes of dealing with the
Respondent Employer concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions or terms of employment, unless and until
the said labor organization shall have demonstrated its
exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among the Company's office employees.
(b) Post at its plant and offices at St. Paul, Minnesota,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."3
Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by its
authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent Employer immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent Employer to insure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (b) above, and as soon as they are
forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
Respondent Union's notice herein marked "Appendix B."
B. Respondent Office & Professional Employees
International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the office employees of the Respondent Hart Motor
Express, Inc., for the purpose of dealing with said
Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or
conditions of employment, unless and until said Union
shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status
pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the
Respondent Employer's office employees.
(b) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent Employer dated March 31, 1966, or to
any extension, renewal, or modification thereof.
(c) Causing, or attempting to cause, the Respondent
Employer to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by entering into, or maintaining,
any agreement with the Respondent Employer which
requires, as a condition of employment, membership in the
Respondent Union, or in any like or related manner
causing, or attempting to cause, the Respondent Employer
to discriminate against any employee in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(d) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
the employees of Hart Motor Express, Inc., in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting hall copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B."4 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
18, after being signed by the Respondent Union
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 its members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the said Regional Director signed copies of
Appendix B for posting by the Respondent Employer at its
St. Paul terminal and offices, as provided above. Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the said Regional Director,
after being signed by the Respondent Union's
representative, shall be forthwith returned to the Regional
Director for disposition by him.
C. Both Respondents shall be ordered to:
1. Jointly and severally reimburse those employees who
became members of Respondent Union after execution of
the contract of March 31, 1966, for initiation fees, dues,
assessments , or other moneys if any, received by the
Respondent Union in payment of their membership,
obligations, together with interest thereon, as set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
2. Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a
Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by 'See fn 3 , supra.
HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC.
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, as
to what steps they have taken to comply herewith.5
5 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner 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
employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist or support Office &
Professional Employees International Union, Local
12, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or
otherwise interfere with the representation of our
employees through a labor organization of their own
choosing.
WE WILL NOT recognize said Local 12, or any
successor thereto, as the exclusive representative of
our office employees for dealing with us with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
terms and conditions of employment, unless and
until said Local 12 shall be certified by the Board
after having demonstrated its exclusive majority
representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among our employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our collective-
bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966, with said
Local 12, or enter into or enforce any extension,
renewal , modification, or supplement thereof, or any
superseding collective-bargaining agreement with
said Local 12; we are not required, however, to vary
those wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive
terms of employment established under such
agreement, and our employees are free to assert any
rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with said Local 12
reimburse those of our employees who became
members of said Local 12 after the execution of the
aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement of
March 31, 1966, for moneys paid by them, if any, or
deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues,
assessments , or other obligations of membership in
said Local 12.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain
from becoming or remaining , members of the above-
named or any other labor organization, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
387
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, 316 Federal
Building, 110 South fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55401, Telephone 334-2618.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 12,
AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HART MOTOR
EXPRESS, INC.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner 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 members
that:
WE WILL NOT perform, enforce, or give effect to our
collective-bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966,
with Hart Motor Express, Inc., or enter into or enforce
any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereof, or any superseding collective-bargaining
agreement, with Hart Motor Express, Inc., unless and
until we shall have been certified by the Board after
having demonstrated our exclusive majority
representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among employees of Hart Motor Express,
Inc., in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the office employees of
Hart Motor Express, Inc., unless and until we have
been certified by the Board as such representative.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Hart Motor
Express, Inc., to discriminate against employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by entering into
or maintaining any agreement with that employer
which requires as a condition of employment
membership in our organization, or in any like or
related manner cause, or attempt to cause, Hart
Motor Express, Inc., to discriminate against any
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Hart Motor
Express, Inc., reimburse those of its employees who
became members of our organization after the
execution of the aforesaid collective-bargaining
agreement of March 31, 1966, for moneys, if any paid
by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation
fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of
membership in our organization.
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO,
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF
HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC.
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
298-668 0-69-26
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal
or covered by any other material. Building 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota
If persons have any question concerning this notice or 55401, Telephone 334-2618.