Imperial Tile Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 1751 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

IMPERIAL TILE COMPANY
Imperial Tile Company and Carpet , Linoleum and Soft
Tile Workers, Local Union No. 1128, AFL-CIO,
affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters and Allied
Trades, AFL-CIO. Case 17-CA-7224
January 31, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On December 1, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Robert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Imperial Tile
Company, Omaha, Nebraska, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLIN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard on September 30, 1976, in Omaha, Nebras-
ka, pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,' and a
complaint issued on September 7, 1976. The complaint
presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent
conceded certain facts with respect to its business opera-
tions, but it denied all allegations that it had committed any
unfair labor practices.
At the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent
were represented by counsel. All parties were given full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to file briefs. At the close of the hearing, oral argument was
had by the General Counsel and the Respondent. On
October 28, 1976, the Respondent submitted a brief and the
General Counsel filed a memorandum of points and
The charge was filed on July 22, 1976
z This was the same collective -bargaining agreement which the Union
had reached earlier with the Employers ' Floor Covering Association of
227 NLRB No. 254
1751
authorities. Upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a Nebraska corporation, is located in
Omaha , Nebraska , where it is engaged in commercial
contracting for the installation of carpet , tile, and related
products . In the course of its business operations, the
Respondent annually purchases materials and services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly and indirectly from
sources located outside the State of Nebraska . Upon the
foregoing findings , the Respondent concedes , and it is now
found, that Imperial Tile Company, is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Carpet , Linoleum and Soft Tile Workers , Local Union
No. 1128 , AFL-CIO, affiliated with the Brotherhood of
Painters and Allied Trades , AFL-CIO, herein the Union,
or Local 1128, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Sequence of Events
On April 18, 1973, the Union and the Respondent
executed a collective-bargaining agreement which by its
terms was to be in effect until May 31, 1975.2 By this
contract, the Respondent recognized the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative for a unit described as
follows:
All journeymen and apprentices engaged in fabricating,
fitting, installing, to be cemented, tacked or otherwise
applied to its base, wherever it may be, all materials,
whether used either as a decorative covering or as an
acousitcal appliance such as carpets of all types and
designs, sheetrubber, sheet vinyl, cork carpet, rubber
tile, asphalt tile, cork tile, linoleum tile, wood tile with
felt or adhesive backing, mastic in sheets or tile form,
vinyl tile, interlocking tile, mastipave, composition in
sheet form or tile form and all derivatives of above, high
pressure laminates, dex-o-tex, vinyl and rubber stair
nosing, stair treads, underlayment, marble, cork board,
vinyl wall covering with reinforced back and rubber or
vinyl wall bases, and all seamless resilient flooring,
however applied; the fitting of all decorative or protec-
tive trim to and adjoining the above materials which
shall include the drilling and plugging of holes and
attaching of strips, slats, nosings, etc., on any base
where to above materials are to be installed or applied
such as drilling, plugging and slatting for installing or
fastenings of carpet, the installing of nosings, capstrips,
comer beads and edgings, also the cleaning and waxing
of all the above materials, and such subfloor cleaning as
Greater Omaha, herein Association. Whether the Respondent herein is
presently a member of that Association does not appear in the record
1752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
required by the floor contractor ; the handling of all
materials from any truck to be delivered to the job in
any manner or means and the placing of such material
within the building as may be required to facilitate
handling by the mechanics on the job, and removal of
such debris as are required to be removed under
contracts with builders , where such work is performed
within the entire State of Nebraska , or within the State
of Iowa located west of the longtitude 94-23' -12," or
within Pennington , Jackson , Hones , Lyman , Buffalo,
Jerauld, Sanborn, Miner, Lake Moody , Minnehaha,
McCook, Hanson , Hutchinson , Turner, Lincoln,
Union , Clay, Yanktown , Bon Homme , Mix, Douglas,
Davison , Auroru , Charles Brule , Gregory Tripp, Todd,
Mellette , Washbaugh , Bennett, Shannon , Fall River
and Custer Counties all in the State of South Dakota.
The Respondent conceded , and it is now found , that the
above-described unit is , and has been, appropriate and that,
at all times material herein , the Union has been the
majority representative of the employees in that unit.
By its terms , the contract between the Respondent and
the Union expired on May 31 , 1975. Prior thereto and in
March 1975, Ralph Scalzo, business representative of Local
1128, contacted Robert McKie , president of the Respon-
dent, to request the initiation of bargaining negotiations for
a new contract . Insofar as reflected in the record, no
meetings were held in response to this overture. In any
event , on July 9 , 1975, the Union filed unfair labor practices
alleging a refusal to bargain (Imperial Tile Company, Case
17-CA-6641). This charge was disposed of by an informal
settlement which the parties arrived at in October 1975.
B. The Negotiations : Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law
About mid-December 1975 , Business Agent Scalzo met
with attorney Daub in the law office of attorney David D.
Weinberg , the latter being counsel for the Union . Thereaf-
ter, approximately five other meetings were held at which
Scalzo represented Local 1128 and attorney Daub repre-
sented the Respondent . At their initial meeting in Decem-
ber 1975 , the Union submitted to the Employer, as its
contract proposal , the agreement which it had negotiated
with the Association and which was effective from June 1,
1975 through May 31 , 1978. During the course of their
meetings Scalzo and the Respondent 's attorney reached
tentative agreement on several provisions of the contract
which the Union had proposed in December. These were
the clauses on vacations, holidays , apprenticeships, nondis-
criminatory hiring, and a grievance procedure. The last of
this series of meetings was held during the first week in
March . Throughout these negotiations the Respondent
submitted no written counterproposals to the Union and, at
their last meeting in March , attorney Daub announced that
"Mr. McKie [the Respondent's president ] said he had to
think about" those provisions as to which his counsel had
expressed tentative agreement . Scalzo testified , credibly
and without contradiction , that at the time he objected to
this position , since negotiations had been in progress for
several months , but that Daub then reiterated that the
Respondent 's final decision as to all the provisions about
which he and Scalzo had been bargaining would thereafter
be left to President McKie.
On March 12, 1976, the Union filed a new unfair labor
practice charge with the Board , alleging that the Respon-
dent was not bargaining in good faith (Imperial Tile
Company, Case 17-CA-7020). Although no further negotia-
tions were had subsequent to that date , early in May the
Union withdrew this charge.
Scalzo testified that from the outset of the negotiations,
which began in December 1975 , the Respondent had
indicated to the Union that attorney Daub would be the
one to contact at all times and that there would be no direct
contacts with President Robert R. McKie. After their last
meeting in early March, Daub did not make any effort to
resume the negotiations . The Union allowed several weeks
to elapse and then, early in May, the business agent
telephoned Daub. According to Scalzo , Daub assured him
that within a week he would submit to the Union a written
counterproposal . However, in actuality , no such response
materialized . After several further telephone calls to the law
office of Respondent's counsel in which Scalzo attempted
without success to talk with Daub, the business agent wrote
to the Respondent 's attorney in a letter dated May 24, 1976.
In this letter the union representative protested that 2 weeks
had elapsed since Daub had orally promised to submit
McKie 's written counterproposal and that Local 1128 had
still received nothing . Scalzo reiterated the Union's urgent
wish that the Respondent 's proposal be transmitted
promptly and asked that negotiations be resumed immedi-
ately. However, the Union never received any response.
Subsequent to writing the aforesaid letter , Scalzo made
numerous efforts to contact attorney Daub by telephone.
He testified that on two or three occasions each week and
until early July he telephoned Daub's law offices in an
effort to reach him there . In each instance, after being told
that the attorney was unavailable at the time, Scalzo left a
message asking that Daub contact him at his earliest
convenience. When, with the passage of almost 6 weeks, no
response was forthcoming , Scalzo wrote directly to Presi-
dent McKie in a letter which read as follows:
JULY 7, 1976
Imperial Tile Company
Arnv : Mr. Bob McKie
14713 Industrial Road
Omaha , Nebraska 68137
Dear Sir:
Approximately May 4, 1976, Local Umon # 1128
withdrew its latest charge against you because you
apparently , through your Attorney Russ Daub assured
the Board that you and Local Union # 1128 were going
to bargain collectively with the intention of making an
amiable contract for all invovled.
I contacted your Attorney approximately May 5, 1976
and he stated you and he were going to subnut a
proposal to us within a week of this date.
I had not heard from him again as he was either busy or
out of the office when I called.
IMPERIAL TILE COMPANY
I wrote him on May 24, 1976 again asking him for your
proposal and a Meeting Date with someone who could
bargain at the Table and not by a relay system.
Again I had not heard from him. I called and he was on
the other line and would call back to my home or office,
of which we still have not made connections.
I called Monday or Tuesday of last week and the
Secretary stated he was on vacation for three (3) weeks
which will end Sunday, July 18, 1976 and he will be in
the Office July 19, 1976.
We understand that since about mid-June 1976 you
have increased the wages of your Employees by one
dollar ($1.00) also you have again made a unilateral
change in the amount of compensation accorded the
Employees in the use of their own vehicles.
You are also continuing to harass your Employees by
interfering with their rights to organization and assis-
tance to Labor Organizations under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Please be advised that since Local Union # 1128 is the
designated bargaining representative for your Employ-
ees as per settlement agreement in Case 4 -17-CA-^6641
we protest these unilateral changes in compensation
without notifying or bargaining with us for these
changes.
We also protest your harassment of your Employees
concerning the Union.
We REQUEST that you submit a date to us , within a week
from receipt of this letter either with your Attorney's
presence after his return July 19 , 1976, or with you or
your Officers in attendance to bargain collectively in
good faith with the Ca et, Linoleum & Soft Tile
Workers Local Union 41128.
Sincerely,
Ralph Scalzo
Business Representative
Carpet, Linoleum & Soft Tile Workers
Local Union # 1128
cc: Mr. Russ Daub, Attorney at Law
The Union received no response to this letter. On July 22,
1976, it filed the unfair labor practice charge on which the
complaint in this case is based.
At the hearing, employee Kenneth Lewis, a member of
the unit, testified as to the pay increase and the change in
the gasoline allowance to which Scalzo referred in his letter
to McKie. According to Lewis, on June 4, 1976, President
McKie met briefly with the employees before they started
their day's work and told them that they were about to
receive a pay raise. The following payday Lewis' check
reflected an increase from $8 to $9 an hour.
Prior to the date of the pay raises, Lewis and other
employees in the unit who used their own trucks in making
service calls for the Respondent were being paid an
1753
additional $7 a day as a gasoline allowance. After the pay
schedule raise, however, the Respondent cut this allowance
to $3 a day. According to Lewis, there was no announce-
ment of this change and the first news he or his colleagues
received was in their payroll statement for the next week.
The Union received no notice orally, or in writing, prior
to the time the Respondent granted members of the unit a
$1-an-hour wage raise or when it cut the amount of their
gasoline allowance from $7 a day to $3 a day.
At the hearing in this matter the Respondent called no
witnesses of its own and chose to rest at the conclusion of
the General Counsel's case . As a result, the testimony of
Scalzo and Lewis was undenied and uncontradicted. Since
both of them were credible witnesses, their testimony is now
found to reflect a substantially accurate account of what
occurred during the period in question.
Concluding Findings
Here, at all times material, the Union was the bargaining
agent for the employees in the appropriate unit. Conse-
quently, the Respondent was under an obligation to
negotiate with Local 1128 as to any proposed wage increase
for employees in the unit and as to any reduction in the
gasoline allowance which the Employer was providing for
those employees. Notwithstanding this requirement, im-
posed by the Act, the Respondent totally ignored the Union
when it chose to effectuate both the pay raise for the
employees and the cut in their allowance for travel
expenses. In bypassing the Union as to these matters the
Respondent engaged in a per se violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act. N.LR.B. v. Benne Katz, et al., d/b/a
Williamsburg Steel Products Company, 369 U.S. 736, 744-
745 (1962); Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 186 NLRB
1050, 1053 (1970), enfd. as to this point sub nom. Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO v.
N.L.R.B., 466 F.2d 380 (C.A.D.C., 1972).
If the parties had reached an impasse in their negotia-
tions, the Respondent might have been free to put into
effect a pay increase. That, however, is not the situation
here, for under no construction of the facts can it be argued
that an impasse had arisen in the bargaining. In its brief, the
Respondent contends that the rule enunciated by the
Supreme Court in the Katz case should not be applied here
because the Employer may have had various legitimate
reasons for adjusting its wage scale and expense allowances,
such as insurance costs, tax implications, maintenance
problems, and related business pressures. Cf. N.L.R.B. v.
Hendel Manufacturing Company, Inc., 483 F.2d 350 (C.A.2,
1973), and NLRB. v. Patent Trader, Inc., 415 F.2d 190,
199-200 (C.A. 2, 1969). Whereas such evidence might have
been developed at the hearing, the present record offers no
such basis for concluding that Katz is inapplicable here.
From the findings set forth above, it is clear that the
Union, as the majority representative, first requested
bargaining conferences with the Respondent Employer in
the spring of 1975, and that no meeting with a representa-
tive of the Employer took place until mid-December.
Thereafter, in a series of approximately six conferences,
Business Agent Scalzo for the Union and attorney Daub, as
the sole representative of the Employer, carried on negotia-
tions until the first of March 1976. Whereas attorney Daub
1754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appears to have conferred with Scalzo on many aspects of
the Union's proposed contract and to have suggested
various changes, at their last meeting he informed Scalzo
that nothing would be final until Respondent's president,
McKie, had an opportunity to "think over" all of the
proposals which had been discussed. Thereafter, notwith-
standing the urgent demands and pleading of the Union,
both orally and in writing, no representative of the
Respondent ever offered to meet with the Union for any
further negotiations . Attorney Daub's comments at their
last meeting made it evident that during all of the previous
conferences he had lacked the authority to make a binding
commitment on behalf of the Employer and that President
McKie, who chose never to appear at any of the negotia-
tions, had retained that power for himself alone. Since, in
the weeks that followed, both McKie and Daub remained
inpervious to all of Scalzo's pleas for a resumption of their
bargaining conferences, it must now be found that the
Respondent had no desire to resume these meetings.
In its brief, the Respondent urges that a busy law practice
sometimes causes difficulties in meeting demands by a
union representative for an early conference. That, of
course, may indeed be the case as to the availability of
individual counsel. Nevertheless, the fact that the Respon-
dent's chosen bargaining representative may have had no
time available to discharge the client's statutory duty is not
a defense that is available to the Employer. Franklin
Equipment Company, Inc., 194 NLRB 643,645-646 (1971);
Village Rambler Sales, Inc., 174 NLRB 247, 249 (1969);
Insulating Fabricators, Inc., Southern Division, 144 NLRB
1325, 1327-28 (1963), enfd. 338 F.2d 1002 (C.A. 4, 1964).3
In any event, on the record here, the Employer's continued
failure to respond to the Union's request for a resumption
of the bargaining sessions can only be construed as part of a
stratagem that was designed to impede and defeat the
Union's efforts to secure a collective-bargaining agreement
for the employees in the unit. By such conduct the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Henry M. Hald High School Association, 213 NLRB 463,
475 (1974); Coronet Casuals, Inc., 207 NLRB 304, 316
(1973); Inter-Polymer Industries, Inc., 196 NLRB 729, 760-
761 (1972). It is also found that the Respondent violated
that same section of the Act in failing to vest its bargaining
representative with sufficient authority to conclude an
agreement . N.L.R.B. v. A. E. Nettleton Co., 241 F.2d 130,
134 (C.A. 2, 1957); Valley City Furniture Company, 110
NLRB 1589, 1590-91(1954).
The test of good faith in collective bargaining is whether a
party to negotiations conducted itself during the entire
negotiations so as to promote rather than to defeat an
agreement . N.L.RB. v. Reed & Prince Manufacturing
Company, 205 F.2d 131 (C.A. 1, 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S.
887 (1953). In the light of the Respondent's procrastination
and delays in meeting with the Union, after the latter first
requested negotiations in the spring of 1975, and subse-
quent to the limited number of meetings held in the early
3 In making this finding, no criticism is intended of Respondent's counsel
In this connection , a quotation from an earlier case is relevant . "No finger of
blame is pointed at the lawyer, he is neither a respondent nor a party. There
was no duty upon him , so far as the statute is concerned , to bargain with
anyone The Union 's certificate runs to the Company, and it is upon the
Respondent that Section 8(aX5) imposes an unqualified obligation to meet
part of 1976, during all of which the Respondent's represen-
tative was vested with only limited authority to speak on its
behalf, along with the Respondent's unilateral action in
June 1976 of granting a pay raise and cutting back the
travel allowance of employees in the unit, it is now found
that the Employer's entire course of action throughout the
period after May 24, 1976, was lacking in a good-faith
desire to arrive at a final agreement in its negotiations with
the Union.4 By such conduct the Respondent further
violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act.
3. All journeymen and apprentices of the Respondent
engaged in fabricating, fitting, installing to be cemented,
tacked or otherwise applied to its base, wherever it may be,
all materials, whether used either as a decorative covering
or as an acoustical appliance such as carpets of all types
and designs, sheetrubber, sheet vinyl, cork carpet, rubber
tile, asphalt tile, cork tile , linoleum tile , wood tile with felt
or adhesive backing, mastic in sheets or tile form, vinyl tile,
interlocking tile, mastipave, composition in sheet form or
tile form and all derivatives of above high pressure
laminates , dex-o-tex, vinyl and rubber stair nosing, stair
treads, underlayment, marlite, cork board, vinyl wall
covering with reinforced back and rubber or vinyl wall
bases, and all seamless resilient flooring, however applied;
the fitting of all decorative or protective trim to and
adjoining the above materials which shall include the
drilling and plugging of holes and attaching of strips, slats,
nosings, etc., on any base where to above materials are to
be installed or applied each as drilling, plugging and
slatting for installing or fastenings of carpet, comer beads
and edgings, also the cleaning and waxing of all the above
materials, and such subfloor cleaning as required by the
floor contractor; the handling of all materials from any
truck to be delivered to the job in any manner or means and
the placing of such material within the building as may be
required to facilitate handling by the mechanics on the job,
and removal of such debris as are required to be removed
under contracts with builders, where such work is per-
formed within the entire State of Nebraska, or within the
State of Iowa located west of longitude 94-23'-12," or
within Pennington , Jackson, Jones, Lyman, Buffalo, Jer-
auld, Sanborn, Miner, Lake Moody, Minnehaha, McCook,
Hanson, Hutchinson, Turner, Lincoln, Union, Clay, Yank-
ton, Bon Home, Mix, Douglas, Davison, Aurora, Charles
Brule , Gregory Tripp, Todd, Mellette, Washbaugh, Ben-
nett, Shannon, Fall River, and Custer Counties all in the
State of South Dakota, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
with the union agents and discuss proper subjects of collective bargaining."
Woody Pontiac Sales, Inc., 174 NLRB 507,512 (1969)
4 In the complaint the General Counsel alleged that the Respondent's
unlawful refusal to bargain began on May 24, 1976. Consequently, no
findings are made as to the Respondent 's course of conduct prior to that
date.
IMPERIAL TILE COMPANY
4. At all times material the Union has been the majority
and exclusive representative of the aforesaid appropriate
unit.
5. By refusing, since May 24, 1976, to bargain collec-
tively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit, and by
unilaterally raising wages and cutting the gasoline allow-
ance of employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent
has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that
the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and that it take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging
in, or continuing, such, or like, violations. Further, it will be
recommended that the Respondent be ordered to bargain
collectively with the Union, upon request, and that it
revoke the unilateral reduction in the gasoline allowance
for unit employees which it effectuated in June 1976. It will
also be recommended that the employees affected be made
whole for any losses which they have incurred as a result of
that unlawful unilateral action by the Respondent. Having
further found that, in June 1976, the Respondent unilateral-
ly granted a wage increase to unit employees without first
notifying or bargaining with the Union, it will be recom-
mended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from such action in the future and that it post appropriate
notices. However, nothing in this recommended Order shall
be construed as requiring a rescission of any wage increase
which the employees have received. Gray Line, Inc., 209
NLRB 88, fn. 1 (1974); H. C. Lien Rubber Co., 207 NLRB
233, 236, fn. 9 (1973); Pan-Abode, Inc., 222 NLRB 313
(1976).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is issued the following recommended:
ORDERS
The Respondent, Imperial Tile Company, Omaha, Ne-
braska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing, upon request, to bargain collectively in
good faith with Carpet, Linoleum and Soft Tile Workers,
5 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
1755
Local Union No. 1128, AFL-CIO, affiliated with Brother-
hood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of the unit found appropriate
herein.
(b) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its represented employees without bargain-
ing with their representative.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Carpet,
Linoleum and Soft Tile Workers, Local Union No. 1128,
AFL-CIO, affiliated with Brotherhood of Painters and
Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The appropriate unit is:
All journeymen and apprentices of the Respondent
engaged in fabricating, fitting, installing to be cement-
ed, tacked or otherwise applied to its base, wherever it
may be, all materials , whether used either as a decora-
tive covering or as an acoustical appliance such as
carpets of all types and designs, sheetrubber, sheet
vinyl, cork carpet, rubber tile, asphalt tile, cork tile,
linoleum tile, wood tile with felt or adhesive backing,
mastic in sheets or tile form, vinyl tile, interlocking tile,
mastipave, composition in sheet form or tile form and
all derivatives of above, high pressure laminates, dex-o-
tex, vinyl and rubber stair nosing, stair treads, underlay-
ment, marlite, cork board, vinyl wall covering with
reinforced back and rubber or vinyl wall bases, and all
seamless resilient flooring, however applied; the fitting
of all decorative or protective trim to and adjoining the
above materials which shall include the drilling and
plugging of holes and attaching of strips, slats , nosings,
etc., on any base where to above materials are to be
installed or applied such as drilling, plugging and
slatting for installing or fastenings of carpet, the
installing of nosings, capstrips, corner beads and
edgings, also the cleaning and waxing of all the above
materials, and such subfloor cleaning as required by the
floor contractor; the handling of all materials from any
truck to be delivered to the job in any manner or means
and the placing of such material within the building as
may be required to facilitate handling by the mechanics
on the job, and removal of such debris as are required to
be removed under contracts with builders, where such
work is performed within the entire State of Nebraska,
or within the State of Iowa located west of longitude
94°-23-12", or within Pennington, Jackson, Jones,
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.
1756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lyman, Buffalo, Jerauld, Sanborn, Miner, Lake
Moody, Minnehaha, McCook, Hanson, Hutchinson,
Turner, Lincoln, Union Clay, Yanktown, Bon Homme,
Mix, Douglas, Davison, Aurora, Charles Brule, Gregory
Tripp, Todd, Mellette, Washbaugh, Bennett, Shannon,
Fall River and Custer Counties all in the State of South
Dakota.
(b) Revoke the unilateral change in the gasoline allow-
ance effectuated in June 1976 and make whole its employ-
ees for any losses they may have suffered by reason of that
unlawful change.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amount of losses due.
(d) Post at its facilities in Omaha, Nebraska, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6 In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE wiLL , upon request , bargain collectively in good
faith with Carpet, Linoleum, and Soft Tile Workers,
Local Union No. 1128 , AFL-CIO, affiliated with
Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades , AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the appropriate unit, for the purpose of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT institute changes with respect to the
terms and conditions of employment of our employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit , without prior
consultation and bargaining with the aforesaid Union
as the exclusive collective -bargaining representative.
WE w1LL rescind the unilateral reduction of the
gasoline allowance for employees in the unit, made in
June 1976, and make no further changes without
consulting the aforesaid Union, and WE WILL make
whole those employees for any losses they may have
suffered by reason of that unlawful change.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the aforesaid Union or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively with repre-
sentatives of their own free choice and engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
IMPERIAL TILE COMPANY