R. L. Sweet Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 529 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 529
R. L. Sweet Lumber Company and Carpenters'
District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity,.
AFL-CIO and Teamsters Local 541, Party to the
Contract. Case 17-CA-5292
November 23, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On May 18, 1973, Administrative Law Judge John
F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the general Counsel
filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief to
which the Respondent 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record2 and the
attached 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 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 Respondent, R. L. Sweet Lumber
Company, Kansas City, Kansas, and Standard
Homes Company, Olathe, Kansas, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in said recommended Order.
1 As the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties, the Respondent's request for oral argument is
hereby denied.
2 The Respondent's posthearmg motion to complete the record is hereby
denied as lacking in merit.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. CoRBLEY, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
was held in this case on March 6, 7, and 8, 1973, at Kansas
City, Kansas, pursuant to a charge filed on August 18,
1972, a complaint and notice of hearing dated October 20,
1972, and an amended complaint and notice of hearing
dated December 26, 1972, both issued by the Regional
Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations
Board and which were likewise duly served. The charge
was filed by Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City
and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, sometimes hereinafter referred to
as the Carpenters. The complaint alleges primarily that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
unilaterally discontinuing certain unit work at its Roe
Boulevard Kansas City, Kansas, plant and transferring
that work and certain employees from the latter location to
Standard Homes Company, alleged to be Respondent's
alter ego, without prior consultation with the Carpenters
which was and is the representative of the unit from which
the work and employees were allegedly transferred.
The complaint further alleges that Respondent and its
claimed alter ego, Standard Homes Company, have further
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to abide by the
terms of Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement
with the Carpenters covering the Roe Boulevard unit and
by other acts described in the complaint.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent acting by
and through Standard Homes Company has violated
Section 8(aXl), (2), and (3) of the Act by recognizing
Teamsters Local 541 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as
Teamsters) as the exclusive representative of a unit of
production and maintenance employees at the Standard
Homes plant in Olathe, Kansas, pursuant to a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Teamsters at a time when
the Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of
the employees at the instant Standard Homes Company
plant.' Finally the complaint alleges that Respondent by
other acts described in the complaint has violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. In its answer, amended at
the hearing, Respondent denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices. Teamsters also filed an answer to
the complaint, amended at the hearing, in which it denied
certain allegations of the complaint.
For reasons which will appear hereinafter, I find and
conclude that Respondent and Standard Homes Company
are a single employer within the meaning of the Act and
that the homes prefabrication and assembly employees
were removed from the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard
and, although assigned to the Olathe plant of Standard
Homes Company, continued to be a part of Carpenters
Roe Boulevard unit. I further find and conclude that by
unilaterally applying and enforcing the Teamsters contract
at Olathe to the employees who were moved out of the
Carpenters Roe Boulevard unit to work at Standard
Homes Company at Olathe and by enforcing the union-
security provisions of that Teamsters contract to these
employees, Respondent by and through Standard Homes
Company has violated, and is violating, Section 8(a)(1), (2),
(3), and (5) of the'Act.
At the hearing, all parties including the Teamsters (the
Party to the Contract) and Standard Homes Company (the
Intervenor) were represented by counsel. All parties were
given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to file briefs. The
General Counsel, Respondent, and Standard Homes
Company presented oral argument through their respective
counsel at the close of the hearing; the other parties waived
1 Both Standard Homes Company and Teamsters participated in the
hearing.
207 NLRB No. 89
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this right. Briefs have subsequently been filed-by Respon-
dent, Teamsters Local 541, Standard Homes Company,
and, on April 26, 1973, by the General Counsel and have
been duly considered.,
Upon the entire record2 in the case including the briefs,
and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Missouri corporation engaged in
the wholesale and retail sale of lumber and related
products with its principal office and lumberyard located
at 4400 Roe Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas, one of the
two locations primarily involved in this proceeding.
Respondent annually sells lumber and related products
valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside of
the State of Kansas and annually has a gross volume of
business in excess of $500,000. Upon the foregoing facts,
which are alleged in the complaint and are admitted in
Respondent's answer and Teamsters' answer, I find, as also
admitted in these answers, that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondent admitted at the
hearing, and Teamsters also admitted in its answer, that
Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act and that Teamsters Local 541 is also ,a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Sequence of Events
Respondent was founded in 1936 , and, although a
Missouri corporation , is also qualified to do business in
Kansas. One of its locations , primarily involved in this
proceeding, was established on a tract of land over 13 acres
in size at 4400 Roe Boulevard in Kansas City, Kansas, and
was opened for business in 1952.
The founder of the firm, Mr. R. L. Sweet, passed away in
1958 and since that time his widow, Mrs. Louise V. Sweet,
has been president of the corporation . Some 95 percent of
the stock in Respondent is held in trust for Mrs. Sweet and
her two daughters . The trustees are the First National
Bank and the husbands of these two daughters.
At the Roe Boulevard location, the Respondent became
engaged in several aspects of the lumber business including
the manufacture and sale of windows, doors, and room
dividers and single package prefabricated homes. For a
number of years a unit of Respondent 's warehouse and
yard employees (e.g., lumber handlers, truckdrivers,
2 The record is hereby corrected in the following particulars [omitted
from publication].
3 While some employees, who testified at the hearing, did not recall
seeing this bulletin, others testified that they did see the bulletin and it is
undisputed that it was prominently rumored among the employees at Roe
loaders, forklift operators, stockmen,- etc.) at Roe Boule-
vard have been represented by Teamsters Local 541, the
so-called Party to the Contract, which participated in these
proceedings. Certain of Respondent's inside employees at
Roe Boulevard, who were engaged in the manufacturing
process (e.g., millmen and prefabricated homes assemblers)
had been represented for some time by the Charging Party,
Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity,
AFL-CIO, in a separate unit. The prefabricated homes
manufacturing activity was known as the Standard Homes
Division of Respondent. -
There came a time in 1971 when Respondent's volume of
business at Roe Boulevard had developed to the point
where Respondent had outgrown its facilities at that
location.
The crowding at that facility, was particularly noticeable
in the Standard Homes production activity which was
required to operate without an assembly line but utilizing
several separated work locations at the Roe Boulevard site.
Thus, window units were manufactured in one area and
wall panels in another. Rafter cutting took place in yet a
different area . Rafters and joints were stored in another
space which had a dirt floor. The assembly of the
completed wall panels for delivery was in a different
location from that at which the panels were manufactured.
In view of this manifestly inefficient method of pro-
duction and the generally cramped quarters at Roe
Boulevard it was decided at a meeting of Respondent's
directors in June 1971 that the , Standard Homes pro-
duction operation would be moved to another site. Accord-
ingly, land was purchased and a new building was erected
some 19 miles away at Olathe, Kansas, in the latter part of
1971.
The new building is clear span (no intervening walls) and
provides for a continuous flow through production line
whereby lumber is brought in at one end, the walls are
manufactured and assembled, and are carried out of the
other end of the building essentially as a package ready to
be sold and delivered. There is also a storage yard and a
railroad spur at the Olathe facility.
The land and building at Olathe are owned by R. L.
Sweet Investment Company and all the stock in that
company is held in trust for Mrs. Louise V. Sweet by the
First National Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, and Mrs.
Sweet's same two sons-in-law, mentioned previously.
Sometime in the late summer of 1971 a "Staff Bulletin"
from Mrs. Sweet dated August 5, 1971, was placed in the
timecard slots of all employees at Roe Boulevard announc-
ing the purchase and the construction of the new building
at Olathe. This bulletin recited, inter alia, that the new
plant would be occupied by "Standard Homes Company, a
division of Sweet Lumber."3
For some time prior to 1971 there had been another
separate corporation, of which Mrs. Sweet was also
president, which was known as Construction Loan Compa-
ny. About October 31, 1971, legal action was taken to
change the name of the latter corporation to Standard
Boulevard in the latter part of 1971 and early 1972 that a move of the
Standard Homes operation was imminent Carpenters Business Representa-
tive Harding was told in January 1972 about this impending move by
Boyce, the Carpenters steward at the Roe Boulevard plant.
R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 531
Homes Company (thereby, in effect, separately incorporat-
ing the Standard Homes Division of R. L. Sweet Compa-
ny).
Notwithstanding this incorporation of Standard Homes
Company, the prefabricated homes operation continued at
the Roe Boulevard plant the same as before. Thus, the
prefabricated homes continued to be manufactured and
shipped from that location and all production employees
continued to be employed by R. L. Sweet Company and
were paid with its checks. All these arrangements came to
an end, however, in February 19724 when prefabricated
homes production was halted at Roe Boulevard .5
Meanwhile, the plant at Olathe was so near to comple-
tion that in early January 1972, Frank H. Woodbury, an
employee of Respondent, and Charles Roberts, now the
assistant plant manager of Standard Homes Company,
went to the Olathe site to check on the completion of the
plant with the general contractor, R. E. Dunn Construction
Company. Also by January 1972 lumber began to arrive at
the Olathe plant and four individuals (Streeter, Nicely,
Brown, and Kline) were hired at the site to put the lumber
in place. In addition to moving lumber, these four
individuals built some racks and other facilities to be used
in the plant's operation.
On January 24, Aubrey Williamson, then a business
agent of Teamsters Local 541, went to the Olathe site,
spoke to the aforementioned four employees and obtained
from them signed authorization cards for that union.
Thereafter Teamsters Local 541 sought recognition as the
collective-bargaining representative of these employees.
On February 4, 1972, Williamson met with Eugene D.
Smith, vice president of Standard Homes Company (who
had previously been the vice president of Respondent and
manager of the old Standard Homes Division), and with
Respondent's counsel, Hoffhaus, and presented- the four
union authorization' cards. After the signatures on these
authorization cards were verified, Smith, and Hoffhaus
agreed to discuss a contract.
On February 8, 1972, Smith and Hoffhaus came to Local
54l's office and began negotiating a collective-bargaining
agreement.
Further meetings were held on February 9 and 11, 1972,
and a contract was- executed on the latter date effective
February 7, 1972, until February 2, 1975, with a provision
for subsequent automatic renewal. Pursuant to this
agreement Teamsters Local 541 was recognized in a
production and maintenance unit at the Olathe facility of
Standard Homes Company.6
4 After the separate incorporation of Standard Homes Company but
before the prefabricated homes production was discontinued at the Roe
Boulevard plant, an arrangement was arrived at whereby Respondent sold
its prefabricated homes to Standard Homes Company for a price which
included the value of the materials and a fixed labor cost for each unit.
Much of the equipment (such as saws, tables, desks, etc) which had been
used by the Standard Homes Division were sold at their "book value" by
Respondent to Standard Homes Company on November 1, 1971
A separate office was temporarily established for Standard Homes
Company office employees at Roe Boulevard and some office employees
were paid on Standard Homes Company checks in January and February
1972. None of the latter were, however, shown -to be unit employees.
5 Carpenters, which was the recognized representative of the employees
performing the homes prefabrication work at Roe Boulevard as well as the
mill employees at_ that location, was not notified by Respondent that the
prefabrication work Was, going to be discontinued at Roe Boulevard in
This agreement was a separate agreement from the same
Union's previously mentioned contract covering the yard
employees at Respondent' s Roe Boulevard location. The
latter unit was covered at the time by a contract with
Teamsters Local 541 effective from April 1, 1969, to April
1, 1972, and said Roe Boulevard unit is currently covered
by a„contract with the same labor organization effective
from April 1, 1972, to March 3-1, 1975.
The date when the Olathe plant contract was executed
-February 11, 1972-is prior to the 6-month statute of
limitations provision set forth in Section 10(b) of the Act.
On February 11, 1972, only the four individuals
previously named (outside of Woodbury and Roberts)
were working at Olathe. The work they still were
performing consisted of unloading lumber, moving it with
forklifts, and putting up racks.? No production work had
as yet begun at the Olathe plant.
In about the middle of February 1972 Smith began
interviewing employees of Respondent at its Roe Boule-
vard plant, and elsewhere to inquire whether they would
accept employment at the ,Olathe plant. As will appear,
several of these employees had been engaged for a number
of years in the building and assembly of wall sections and
other operations in the manufacture of the prefabricated
housing units for Standard Homes at Roe Boulevard. A
number of those interviewed including Coffelt, who was
then considering retirement, and Schaffer, Phillip Fisher,
and John Papineau accepted the offer of employment and
began working at the Olathe plant before the end of
February 1972. These four employees were members of
Carpenters Local 1635 while working at Respondent's Roe
Boulevard location.
The first prefabricated home package was produced at
the Standard Homes Company Olathe plant on February
29, 1972.
In the meantime James Harding, business representative
of Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and
Vicinity, AFL-CIO, which, as previously noted, was the
recognized representative of the mill and prefabricated
homes unit at Respondent's Roe Boulevard location, was
told by his steward, Louis Boyce,8 on February 20, 1972,
that Coffelt, who had been employed in that unit, was
about to begin work at the new Olathe plant. Accordingly,
Harding went to the office of Hatcher, Respondent's vice
president in charge of production,9 to inquire about (what
Harding considered to be) the transfer of Coffelt from Roe
Boulevard to the Olathe facility. Hatcher informed
Harding that the Olathe facility was not a part of the
February 1972. The first discussion of this matter between Respondent and
Carpenters occurred, as will appear, on February 20, 1972, when James
Harding, the Carpenters business representative, spoke about it with
Hatcher, Respondent's vice, president in charge of production, after
Harding had been informed by his steward that one of the homes
prefabrication employees, Coffelt, was about to leave the Roe Boulevard
plant to begin working at the Olathe location.
6 These findings in regard to the organization of the Olathe facility and
the bargaining negotiations are based on the credible testimony of
Williamson, which was not denied by Smith Hofffhaus did not testify
Williamson and Smith credibly so testified.
Boyce was the steward of the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard and
was also employed by Respondent at that location
9 While Hatcher is not in charge of-production at the Olathe plant, he
was in charge of all production of prefabricated homes when that operation
was still going on at the Roe Boulevard plant.
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent, but was a separate Delaware corporation.
Hence, said Hatcher, he and Harding had nothing to
discuss. Harding, however, .insisted that he would process
the matter through the grievance procedures of the
Carpenters contract covering the Roe Boulevard plant.10
Sometime in February or March of 1972 the office and
plant equipment previously used at the Roe Boulevard
plant by the Standard Homes Division of Respondent and
which had been sold to Standard Homes Company by
Respondent on November 1, 1971-were moved to the
Olathe plant, where such assets were put to use for the
same purposes and essentially in the same manner as their
utilization at Roe Boulevard.
Also in February and March 1972 other employees" of
Respondent left its Roe Boulevard plant and began
working for Standard Homes Company in Olathe. These
included Dial and Quick who had been members of
Carpenters Local 1635 while working in the Carpenters
unit at Roe plant. Others were Berry, Donica, Dale Long
and Terry Long, Savage, Simpson, Vest, and Webb, who
had been members of Teamsters Local 541 while employed
by Respondent at its Roe Boulevard plant.
On March 17, 1972, Carpenters filed a grievance with
Respondent complaining, inter alia, that Respondent had
transferred bargaining-unit work from Roe Boulevard to
Olathe without consultation with Carpenters; unilaterally
imposed a different collective-bargaining agreement with
less favorable wages and working conditions upon Carpen-
ters unit employees; and bypassed Carpenters in dealing
directly with Carpenters unit employees about their
working conditions and threatened said employees with
termination if they did not transfer to the Olathe plant, all
in violation of the Carpenters collective-bargaining agree-
ment then in effect at the Roe Boulevard plant. By letter
dated March 22, 1972, Respondent denied the grievance on
the ground that the work to which the grievance referred
was then being performed by a different corporation (i.e.,
Standard Homes Company) and by employees of that
corporation under the aegis of a collective-bargaining
agreement with a different union (i.e., Teamsters Local
541). In a letter dated April 19, 1972, Respondent further
took the position that the grievance was not arbitrable,
essentially for the same reasons Respondent had denied
the grievance in its letter of March 22.
At about this same time the Carpenters contract covering
the Roe Boulevard plant was nearing its termination date
and Carpenters gave timely notice at the end of February
1972 that it sought to negotiate a new agreement with
Respondent for the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard. In
early April and May of 1972,12 Respondent and Carpen-
ters negotiated a new agreement covering the Carpenters
Roe Boulevard unit. The new agreement was ratified by
the unit employees about June 1, 1972, and was made
retroactive to May 1, 1972 (the day after the termination of
the prior contract). The new agreement is effective from
the latter date until April 30, 1974.
During the negotiations for this 1972-1974 contract,
Respondent's claimed transfer of Roe Boulevard Carpen-
ters unit work to the Olathe plant was not discussed by the
parties. Nor did the parties advert, in these negotiations, to
the terms and conditions of employment of the former Roe
Boulevard Carpenters unit employees who were by then
working at the Olathe plant.
Since the spring of 1972 the prefabricated homes
manufacturing operation continues to be carried on at the
Olathe plant.13 And all production and maintenance
employees at the plant continue to be represented by
Teamsters Local 541 under the terms of its contract for
that plant.
Respondent's cessation of the prefabricated homes
operation at Roe Boulevard utilizing Carpenters unit
employees at that location and the subsequent reconstitu-
tion of that activity at the Olathe plant of Standard Homes
Company without notification to, and bargaining with, the
Carpenters are the principal bases of the 8(a)(5) allegations
of the complaint. The application of the Teamsters Olathe
plant contract to the former Roe Boulevard Carpenters
unit employees now working at Olathe, as well as the
application of that contract and its union security
provisions to all production and maintenance employees at
the Olathe plant, constitute the substance of the 8(a)(l),
(2), and (3) allegations of the complaint as well as other
8(a)(5) allegations of the complaint.
B. The Supervisory Status of Smith and Kline
The complaint alleges that Eugene D. Smith and Walter
Kline, both of Standard Homes Company, are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. The answers deny these
allegations. I find and conclude, however, that both are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Smith is the vice president of Standard Homes Compa-
ny. He is in charge of the draftsmen who draw the plans for
Standard Homes Company, has the ultimate authority over
production at the Olathe facility, and is in charge of sales
and marketing. Charles Roberts, assistant plant manager,
recommends hiring and firing to Woodbury who reports
on such matters to Smith. Smith hired Coffelt, Schaffer,
Papineau, and Fisher to work at the Olathe plant or, in any
event, arranged for their employment at that location. I
find, therefore, that Smith responsibly directs the activities
of all employees at Olathe and has authority to hire, fire,
and transfer employees, all in a manner requiring the
exercise of independent judgment. I conclude therefore
that he is, and was at least since the hiring or transfer of
Coffelt, Schaffer, Papineau, and Fisher in February 1972, a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act.14 5
Walter Kline, as previously noted, was one of the
individuals originally hired in January 1972 to work at the
Olathe plant.15 When Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and
10 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Harding which
was not denied by Hatcher.
11 Besides Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and Papineau, who have already
been mentioned.
12 According to the credible testimony of Harding, which was not denied
by Hatcher.
13 Although utilizing door and windows which are manufactured by
Respondent at the Roe Boulevard plant and sold by Respondent to
Standard Homes Company.
14 I make these findings on the basis of the credible and undisputed
testimony of Smith, Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and Papmeau.
15 Kline also formerly worked at Respondent's Roe Boulevard plant
R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 533
Papineau took up their duties at the Olathe plant in
February 1972, Kline had become a foreman.16 As a
foreman, according to the undisputed testimony of Smith,
Kline has the authority to recommend hiring and firing,
and, according to the admission of Smith, management has
the obligation to "back up" Kline. Further, Smith
admitted, Kline has enjoyed the status of nonworking
foreman since he, Kline, "first came down to Olathe."
I find, therefore, that Kline has been a foreman since at
least February 21, 1972 (when Coffelt began working at
Olathe), and has had the authority effectively to recom-
mend hiring and firing in a manner requiring the exercise
of independent judgment. I conclude, accordingly, that he
has been, at least since February 21, 1972, a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
C. The Alleged Status of Standard Homes
Company as an Alter Ego of Respondent
The complaint alleges that Standard Homes Company is
an alter ego of Respondent. Respondent and Teamsters 541
deny that Standard Homes Company occupies such status.
I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that
Standard Homes Company is an alter ego of Respondent
and that the two companies are a single employer within
the meaning of the Act.
1. Both Respondent and Standard Homes Company
have essentially common ownership.
Standard Homes Company is almost entirely owned by
Respondent, by Mrs. R. L. Sweet (the president of
Respondent and also of Standard Homes Company) and
by relatives or in-laws of Mrs. Sweet.17
As previously noted, about 95 percent of the outstanding
stock in Respondent is held in trust for Mrs. Sweet and her
two daughters, Marilyn S. Keene and Athelia S. Clingan.
The trustees are Mrs. Sweet's sons-in-law, Melvin H.
Clingan, Ralph Kiene, and the First National Bank of
Kansas City.
2. Respondent and Standard Homes Company have a
number of common officers. Thus, Mrs. Sweet is the
president of both companies as well as the treasurer of
Respondent. Melvin H. Clingan (her son-in-law) is the
secretary of Respondent and is also the secretary and
assistant treasurer of Standard Homes Company. George
E. Fischer is a vice president (controller) of Respondent
and assistant secretary of Standard Homes Company.
3. The directors of Respondent and Standard Homes
Company were not shown. However, it is undisputed that
the directors of Respondent are elected by the trustees of
95 percent of Respondent's corporate stock. And, as noted,
two trustees are sons-in-law of Mrs. Sweet. Since Respon-
dent and members of the Sweet family own 98.5 percent of
the Standard Homes Company, I conclude that Respon-
is I make this finding on the basis of the undisputed testimony of
Coffelt Kline did not testify.
17 Thus, there are 10,000 outstanding shares of stock in Standard Homes
Company. Of ithese shares Respondent owns 8,950 (89.5 percent). Mrs.
Sweet owns 150 shares; her two daughters, Marilyn S. Kiene and Atheha S.
Clingan, 150 each; one son-in-law, Melvin H. Clingan, 150; and her four
minor Kiene grandchildren, 150 altogether, for a total of 9 percent.
Therefore, 98.5 percent of the stock in Standard Homes Company is owned
or controlled by Respondent and members of Mrs. Sweet's family.
dent and the Sweet family also elect the directors of
Standard Homes Company.
4. Mrs. Sweet is actively engaged in overseeing both
corporations. She has an office of Roe Boulevard and
another at Olathe. She keeps office hours at Roe Boulevard
6 days per week and assists in sales promotion at Olathe
every Sunday. During the week, Mrs. Sweet is in contact
with Eugene D. Smith, the vice president of Standard
Homes Company and its manager, every day-in person or
by telephone-and Mrs. Sweet must approve decisions of
Smith, particularly major purchases recommended by him.
Mrs. Sweet signs all the paychecks 18 for Standard Homes
Company employees-19
5. Respondent and Standard Homes have a commonly
controlled labor relations policy.
As noted, Mrs. Sweet is president of both companies.
A "Staff Bulletin" from Mrs. Sweet dated August 24,
1972, was issued to all employees of Respondent and
Standard Homes Company announcing that all offices and
yards of Respondent and Standard Homes Company
including the exhibition houses of Standard Homes
Company would be closed for all 3 days of the Labor Day
weekend, September 2, 3, and 4, 1972.
Hoffhaus, who ably represented Respondent at the
hearing, also represented it in denying the Carpenters
demand for arbitration in April 1972. Hoffhaus also
participated in the discussions and negotiations in early
February 1972 between Teamsters 541 and Standard
Homes Company which resulted in the recognition of
Teamsters by Standard Homes Company and the execu-
tion of a contract between, Teamsters and Standard Homes
Company which, by its terms, covers a unit of the
production and maintenance employees at the Olathe
plant.20
Officials of Respondent sent employees to see Smith at
Respondent's Roe Boulevard plant to discuss the possibili-
ty of their working at the Olathe plant. Thus, Hatcher,
Respondent's vice president in charge of production at Roe
Boulevard who also negotiated and signed the 1972
Carpenters contract for that location (and admitted
handling Respondent's labor relations for a number of
years previously), summoned or accompanied employees
Schaffer and Fisher to their interviews with Smith. When
Schaffer originally turned down the Olathe opportunity
due to the low wage offer by Smith, Hatcher told Schaffer
he might get another call. Schaffer did get another call
from Smith and Schaffer was offered and accepted a
higher hourly rate at Olathe than he was first offered. Roe
Boulevard Foreman Don Walker sent employee Fisher to
his interview with Smith. Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and
Papineau all credibly testified, and I find, that Smith told
them, when he spoke to them at the Roe Boulevard plant in
February 1972, that they would retain their seniority from
IS These findings are based on the admissions of Mrs. Sweet.
19 In her testimony Mrs. Sweet also referred to the product of Standard
Homes Company as "our home.-
20 Lowe, who capably represented Standard ]Homes Company at the
hearing, was not present at these negotiations. I am constrained to observe,
in passing, that I was favorably impressed by the high degree of professional
competence and courtesy demonstrated by all counsel who appeared at the
hearing.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their employment with Respondent at least insofar as
vacations at Standard Homes wereconcerried.21
6. The initial complement at Olathe at the time
production began on February 29, 1972, consisted of
employees who had just been released from Respondent.
Thus, of some 18 production and maintenance employees
working at Olathe by the end of February 1972, some 14
had formerly been employed at Roe Boulevard where they
had been represented in the carpenters unit by Carpenters
or had been represented by Teamsters Local 541, apparent-
ly in the latter's unit at the Roe Boulevard plant 22
7. Smith admitted that all supervisors at Olathe had
formerly worked at Respondent's Roe Boulevard plant,
although he further stated that some of the Olathe leadmen
had not been part of supervision at Roe Boulevard.
8. As will appear, Standard Homes Company is
producing essentially the same product as was produced
when the prefabrication operation was located at Roe
Boulevard.
9. There continues to be a certain measure of product
integration between the Olathe and Roe Boulevard plants
in that the window and door units installed by Standard
Homes Company at Olathe are manufactured at Roe
Boulevard and sold to Standard Homes Company by
Respondent. The window and door-units utilized by the
old Standard Homes Division were also manufactured at
Roe Boulevard.
10. All purchasing for Standard Homes Company and
Respondent is performed by Respondent although Stand-
ard Homes Company pays Respondent for this and other
accounting services. As previously mentioned, George E.
Fischer is Respondent's controller as well as the assistant
secretary of Standard Homes Company.
11. A considerable amount of office and factory
equipment was sold by Respondent to Standard Homes
Company on or about November 1, 1971, at the equip-
ment's "book value" which I conclude in numerous
instances was substantially less than its actual value. For
example, some 7 saws of various descriptions were sold for
$1 each, 12 desks were sold at the same unit price as were 7
file cabinets, 6 Friden calculators and 2 Marchant
calculators. Eleven typewriters, mostly Royal, were also
sold to Standard Homes Company by Respondent for $1
each. This equipment, particularly the shop items (such as
saws, tables, etc.) continued to be used by Respondent's
employees at Roe Boulevard until February 1972 and is
now in use at Olathe.
12. Finally, Standard Homes Company is still held out
21 Kline , whom I have found to be a supervisor, told Papineau about
March 1972 that Papmeau could be transferred from Olathe to another
plant of Respondent at Lee 's Summit in Missouri.
22 At least eight of this number had been represented by Teamsters
Local 541 at Roe Boulevard . This figure accords with information given to
Teamsters Local 541 representative Williamson by Dale Long, Teamsters
steward at Roe Boulevard , that about seven Teamsters members at Roe
Boulevard would be laid off as the result of Standard Homes leaving that
location to go to Olathe
23 The cutoff date for placement of advertising in the Yellow Pages for
1972 was October 13, 1971.
24 The cutoff date for placement of advertising in the Yellow Pages for
1973 was October 13, 1972
25 E.g., Macke Laundry Service Company of D.C. et at 190 NLRB I;
Manitowoc Shipbuilding Inc, et . al, 191 NLRB 786.
to the public as a division of Respondent in the local
telephone "Yellow Pages" `for 197223 and 1973.24 In
newspaper advertising as recently as May 7, 1972,
Standard Homes Company was also held out to the public
as a subsidiary of Respondent. The Standard Homes
advertising brochure for 1972 also recites that Standard
Homes is a subsidiary of Respondent.
In view of all the foregoing, I find and conclude that
Respondent and Standard Homes Company are, and were
at all times material hereto , a single employer within the
meaning of the Act 25
D. The Appropriate Unit: are the Standard Homes
Company Prefabrication Employees at Olathe a Part
of the Carpenters Unit at Roe Boulevard or Have
They Been Merged into a Plantwide Production and
Maintenance Unit at the Olathe Plant?
Having concluded that Respondent and Standard
Homes Company are a single employer within the meaning
of the Act, it follows that all employees of the'Olathe plant
are employed by the same employing entity as the
employees who continue to work at the Roe Boulevard
plant.
The pertinent question, however, insofar as these
proceedings are concerned, now becomes whether the
homes prefabrication and assembly employees-who were
represented in the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard-re-
main a part of that unit (or have become an accretion to it)
notwithstanding the fact that such employees are now
located at the Olathe plant. I conclude that the instant
employees continue to be-or are an accretion to-the
Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard.26 '
Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and Papineau all credibly
testified, and f find, that, since they have begun their
employment at Olathe, they have performed the same
work, using the same tables, jigs, and tools, as they did
when employed 27 at the Roe Boulevard plant 28 This work
is also performed for many of the same customers
(particularly builders) who used to purchase the prefabri-
cated homes when the prefabrication and assembly
operation was located at Roe Boulevard.
This work also continues to be performed under the
supervision of Smith who was in charge of the old
Standard Homes Division of Respondent at Roe Boule-
vard, albeit Smith did not then directly supervise the
production operation. Also, as noted, Mrs. Sweet is
president of Standard Homes Company as well as
Respondent.
26 1 do not reach or decide the question of whether the yard employees,
forklift loaders , etc., at Olathe are an accretion to the Teamsters unit at Roe
Boulevard That question was not presented in the complaint nor was it
litigated at the hearing
27 Coffelt retired at the end of August 1972 1 also conclude that Dial
and Quick , two other former members of Local 1635 who terminated their
employment with Respondent in February 1972 and began work for
Standard Homes Company in the same month; also performed the same
work at both locations . I reach this conclusion based on the fact that each
has the same job classification with Standard Homes Company as he did
with Respondent (i.e , assembler and rafter cutter, respectively).
28 Smith conceded at the hearing that the work is essentially the same,
requiring the same skills . The only difference cited by Smith is that the
product must now conform precisely to the drawing , a policy which did not
obtain at Roe Boulevard.
R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 535
Further, as already found, the former Roe Boulevard
employees now employed at Standard Homes were assured
that their seniority with Respondent would be-continued at
Olathe at least insofar as vacations at Standard Homes are
concerned. -
While there is some evidence that employees are
interchanged in what Smith described as a "fairly stand-
ard" manner in the production operation at Olathe (i.e.,
utilizing yard employees to do some production work and
vice versa), Smith gave only one specific example 29 of this
and conceded that a majority of the employees are
assigned to one particular job at which they are most
efficient. In this connection it is also important to note
that, in addition to hiring six Carpenters unit prefabrica-
tion employees from Roe Boulevard to work in Olathe in
February 1972 (Coffelt, Fisher, Schaffer, Papineau, Quick,
and Dial), Standard Homes Company also hired Duxbury
and Fitzpatrick to work at Olathe in March 1972. These
last two employees were former members of Carpenters
Local 1635 at Roe Boulevard, but had left Respondent's
employ there in 1971 and 1970 respectively.30 They were
hired for assembly work at Olathe. Further Coffelt credibly
testified, and I find, that he never saw Brown, Streeter and
Nicely (i.e., three of the four individuals originally hired at
Olathe in January 1972) performing production work.31
I conclude, based on the foregoing, that the prefabrica-
tion and' assembly employees' now working at Olathe
continue to be-or are an accretion to-the Carpenters
unit at Roe Boulevard. This conclusion also rests on my
subsidiary findings, supra, in support of my conclusion that
Respondent and Standard Company are a single employer
within the meaning of the Act including, inter alia, the
integration of operations whereby Respondent's mill
employees continue to manufacture the window and door
units' for the prefabricated homes assembled at Olathe just
as such mill employees manufactured the same compo-
nents when the prefabrication and assembly operation was
carried out at Roe Boulevard.
I am not persuaded in all the foregoing circumstances
that there has been sufficient interchange of the prod-
uction, maintenance, and yard employees at Olathe to
disestablish the integrity of the Standard Homes Company
prefabrication and assembly employees with the Carpen-
ters unit at Roe' Boulevard. For under Board law, the
perimeters of an otherwise appropriate unit-here one
founded on bargaining history 32 and a Board certification
29 Williamson, the then Teamsters representative. also saw one or two of
the four employees, whom he originally signed up, doing production work
after production began.
30 Duxbury had been an apprentice panel assembler and Fitzpatrick an
auto nailer operator at Roe Boulevard.
31 This testimony is not necessarily inconsistent with that of Williamson,
supra who only saw "one or two" of these four employees working on the
production line.
32 Where the same employees did essentially the same work using the
same equipment when members of the Roe Boulevard Carpenters unit.
33 In fact a stipulation entered into by the parties, styled G.C. Exh. 8,
sets forth separate job assignments for the Olathe plant employees which
clearly place such employees in homes assembly (Carpenters unit) work
(e.g., "Ray L. Dial-assembler of panels") or non-Carpenters unit
warehouse work (e.g, "David N. Nicely-lift truck operator").
34 See Big Y Supermarkets, 161 NLRB 1263, 1267-1268; cf. American
Cyanamid Company; 131 NLRB 909, 910.
35 While some of the latter employees subsequently joined Teamsters, I
(according to the language of the 1970-1972 contract
between Carpenters and Respondent)-will not be washed
away merely by general testimony that interchange has
occurred into and out of such a unit. What is required to
defeat the appropriateness of such a unit on this basis is a
demonstration that'the amount of such interchange has
been significant and such a showing would normally
require evidence of the regularity and identity of individual
employees who have participated in such interchange 33
I do not find such a demonstration present in this
record.M
I further find, based upon the prior and current
collective-bargaining agreement between Carpenters and
Respondent, and the apparent Board certification, both
covering the Boulevard unit, that Carpenters was, at all
times relevant hereto, and remains the majority representa-
tive of that unit including the homes prefabrication and
assembly employees now working at,the Standard Homes
Company plant in Olathe.35
E. The Alleged 8(a)(2) Violations
The complaint alleges, as amended at the hearing, that
Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company
unlawfully recognized Teamsters Local 541 as the exclusive
representative of the production and maintenance employ-
ees at the Olathe plant of Standard Homes Company on
February 4, 1972, at a time when Teamsters did not
represent an uncoerced majority of the Olathe plant
employees and when a substantial and representative
complement was not yet employed at the plant. Also
alleged as violative of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the. Act was
the subsequent execution of the collective-bargaining
agreement between Teamsters and Standard Homes
Company on February 11, 1972, effective from February 7,
1972. And to remedy these alleged unfair labor practices
the General Counsel asks to have me recommend an order
setting aside the instant contract.
For its part, Respondent contends that the recognition
of, and execution of a contract with, the Teamsters at the
Olathe plant cannot be found to be unfair labor practices,
if only for the reason that said events occurred prior to the
6-month statute of limitations' period set forth in Section
conclude they would not have done so but for Respondent's unfair labor
practices. Of the employees hired to do homes prefabrication and assembly
work at Olathe, six were members of Carpenters Local 1635 and had
immediately prior thereto been employed in the Roe Boulevard Carpenters
unit-Coffelt, Fisher, Schaffer, Papineau , Dial, and Quick (although Quick
and Schaffer were on layoff in February 1972); two more were former
employees at Roe Boulevard-Duxbury and Fitzpatrick, where they had
been members of Carpenters Local 1635. Only five subsequently hired at
Olathe to do homes prefabrication and assembly work (as of September
1972, the last hiring record shown at the hearing) were not demonstrated to
have been former members of the Carpenters or one of its locals-Altman,
Brown, Michael, Smith and Srausbaugh. The first two of these last five who
were hired, Smith and Michael; were not hired until March 21, 1972
Pursuant to the union security provisions of the Carpenters Roe
Boulevard contract (art. 11(c)) employees may designate a specific local of
the Carpenters in their dues checkoff authorizations-a privilege obviously
exercised by the foregoing individuals who belonged specifically to Local
1635.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10(b) of the Act. I have already found that these events
did, in fact, occur prior to the 10(b) period.36
I agree with Respondent's contention. Since the recogni-
tion and contract execution occurred more than 6 months
prior to the filing and service of the charge in the instant
case, the circumstances surrounding these matters cannot
be utilized to set aside the contract. Section 10(b) so
prescribes.37 Nor does the possibility that such a contract
would not serve as a contract bar to a representation
petition under principles enunciated by the Board in its
General Extrusion Company, Inc., 38 decision serve to
invalidate such an agreement in an unfair labor practice
case, where the agreement was entered into prior to the
10(b) period.39
Altogether different questions are, however, posed by the
further allegations of the complaint that said agreement
was enforced in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the Act with respect to employees at the Standard Homes
Company Olathe plant jnd that Teamsters was unlawfully
assisted by officials of Standard Homes Company at a time
when Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority
of employees at said plant. For, as will be discussed, said
agreement, including its union security provisions, was
applied and enforced to the homes prefabrication and
assembly employees at Olathe and said assistance occurred
at times clearly occurring within the 10(b) period. And, as
already found, Teamsters Local 541 did not represent these
employees (even though said employees had become a part
of the complement at the Olathe plant) since, despite their
assignment to Olathe, such employees continued to be
included in the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard, as also
already found.
I find, for reasons explained hereafter, that Teamsters
never represented an uncoerced majority of this group of
employees at Olathe nor the unit of which they were, and
are, a part. Rather Carpenters, was, and is, the exclusive
bargaining representative of these homes prefabrication
and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company.
As previously found, the only individuals working at the
time the contract was executed on February 11, 1972, were
four who were engaged primarily in unloading lumber, in
moving it on forklift trucks, and in making racks.
Production did not begin until February 29, i.e., a date by
which some six Carpenters unit employees from Roe
Boulevard-who had performed homes prefabrication and
assembly work at Roe Boulevard-resumed these same
36 1 conclude that the 6-month period of limitation began on or about
February 19, 1972, a date 6 months preceding the filing and service of the
charge Even if said period were to begin on February 18, 1972 (to account
for the shortness of the month of February), this would not alter my
conclusion because the events in question occurred on February II or
earlier.
37 Local No. 1424, 1AM v. N.L KB., 362 U.S. 411 (1960).
3s 121 NLRB 1165.
39 The Kroger Company, 165 NLRB 872. 1 am not impressed with the
General Counsel's argument in his brief that the 10(b) period should begin
with the hiring of Coffelt on February 21, because, says the General
Counsel, Coffelt was the first employee whose rights were unlawfully
affected by the contract.
The General Counsel's argument rests on Southern California District
Council of Laborers and ItsAffliated Local 1184 v. Ordman 318 F.Supp. 633
(1970), which is distinguishable on its facts. There, no employees were hired
when the complained of contract was executed and the court held that the
duties at the Olathe plant; the first, Coffelt, having begun
work there on or about February 21.
It is undisputed that the Teamsters contract, with its
lower wage rates and different benefits, was applied to the
prefabrication and assembly employees upon their employ-
ment at ©lathe.40
I further conclude that this contract's provisions recog-
nizing the Teamsters as the bargaining representative of
the instant prefabrication and assembly employees and
requiring membership in Teamsters as a condition of
employment were enforced as to these employees. Thus,
Smith advised Coffelt on about February 17, 1972, and
Papineau and Fisher a few days later, that the employees at
Olathe would be represented by one union, the Team-
sters.41 The contract which had already been entered into
contains a union security provision requiring membership
in the Teamsters as a condition of employment and
Coffelt, Fisher, and Papineau did, in fact, subsequently
join that labor organization.
I am not persuaded that the fact that Kansas is a so-
called "Right to Work" state exculpates Respondent from
the charge that it enforced the union-security provisions of
the Teamsters agreement. That is, the argument goes, since
Kansas has a "Right to Work" law union membership
must be considered voluntary. F reject this argument on the
simple basis of the fact of Smith's foregoing admonition to
these three employees that there would be one union at
Olathe-the Teamsters.42 If Respondent had intended to
rely on the voluntary character of union membership
under such a law there would have been no reason for
Smith to have advised the employees that the Teamsters
was to be the only union at Olathe.
However, by making the statement that Teamsters was
the only union, in the context of an employment or transfer
interview, the implication was clearly left in the minds of
the employees that this was the union which they had best
join.
After these employees had begun work at Olathe, further
efforts were expended by Respondent to have them join
the Teamsters. Thus, as has already been mentioned in
part, Supervisor Kline spoke to Papineau in March 1972
about the matter of Papineau's joining that union. To
Papineau's statement that he, Papineau, thought that
Kansas had a "Right to Work" law, Kline retorted that
Respondent also had a plant in Missouri (which does not
have a "Right to Work" law) and there would be nothing
10(b) period began with the hiring of the first employees whose rights were
affected by the contract. Here three , or more probably four, employees (if
Kline was not then a supervisor) were hired before the execution of the
contract. The rights of all three or four would have to be "affected" by the
contract , which covered their terms and conditions of employment if, as the
General Counsel says, that contract was executed in violation of Sec. 8(a)(l)
and (2) of the Act and none could lawfully be deprived of an opportunity to
file a charge with the Board so alleging.
40 Except for Fisher during the first 2 days of his employment there. He
credibly testified that be worked "unofficially" at Olathe for 2 days, at the
Roe Boulevard Carpenters hourly rate, setting up tables and lining up
machinery. Thereafter he was paid the Teamsters Olathe leadman rate
which was less.
41 Coffelt, Fisher, and Papineau credibly so testified and Snuth did not
deny it.
42 In view of Smith's failure to deny these admonitions, I attach no
weight to his general testimony that he did not enforce that clause.
R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 537
to stop Respondent from transferring Papineau to that
location. Papineau subsequently joined the Teamsters.43
Smith also offered to pay Fisher's initiation fee of $100
to the Teamsters several weeks after Fisher began work at
Olathe. Fisher declined the offer and paid the fee himself
when he later joined.44
The application and enforcement of this contract to
these prefabrication and assembly employees would not be
unlawful if the work in which they were to be engaged
would have been an accretion to the unit work already
being performed at Olathe.45 But the work being per-
formed at Olathe at the time the contract was executed did
not include production and assembly of prefabricated
homes. Nor was such production and assembly begun at
Olathe until the homes prefabrication and assembly
employees from the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard were
assigned to work at Olathe on and after February 21, 1972.
But, as I have found, these prefabrication and assembly
employees continue to be-or are on accretion to-the
Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard despite their assignment
to the Olathe plant subsequent to the execution of the
Olathe Teamsters contract. Hence, that contract when
applied and enforced with respect to these employees has
been applied to employees in a different unit, not
represented by the Teamsters.
The application of a collective-bargaining agreement
with one labor organization (here Teamsters) and enforce-
ment of that contract's union-security provisions to
employees in a different unit represented by a different
labor organization (here Carpenters) is violative of Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act,46 even though the contract
thus applied and enforced was entered into prior to the
10(b) period.
I therefore find that Respondent through Standard
Homes on and after February 21, 1972, violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by applying and enforcing
the Teamsters Olathe contract to the homes prefabrication
and assembly employees who were then, and still are, a
part of the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard.47
And in reaching the conclusion that Respondent through
Standard Homes Company unlawfully assisted Teamsters
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, I rely not
only on the undisputed application of Teamsters contract
to the instant production employees but also upon Smith's
aforedescribed statements to Fisher and Papineau in
February 1972 and Smith's and Kline's aforementioned
remarks to Fisher and Papineau in March 1972,48 whereby
I have concluded that Respondent enforced the union
security provisions of this contract.
43 Papineau credibly testified to this conversation. Kline did not testify.
44 Fisher credibly so testified. Smith stated in relation to this offer to pay
the fee that he, Smith, "sort of left him [Fisher I with the impression that I
[Smith ] would check on it and see," but he later told Fisher that "the office"
had told Smith that it could not pay the initiation fee.
In offering this somewhat different version in his testimony Smith looked
at me with a resigned expression on his face. To the extent that the versions
differ, I credit Fisher.
45 E.g., The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (Family Savings
Center), 140 NLRB 1011.
46 Wolfer Printing Co., Inc., 145 NLRB 695; White Front Stores Inc, 166
NLRB 175.
F. The 8(a)(5) Allegations of the Complaint
On February 20, 1972, the day before the first of these
employees (Coffelt) reported for work at Olathe, Carpen-
ters Respondentative Harding sought to discuss the matter
of "the transfer" of the instant employees with Hatcher,
Respondent's vice president in charge of production
(Hatcher was also Respondent's principal bargainer in the
Carpenters unit contract negotiations in 1972 and admitted
that he had handled Respondent's labor relations prior to
that time). Hatcher told Harding there was nothing to
discuss because the Olathe plant was a "wholly owned
Delaware corporation and was not part of Sweet Compa-
ny.
To the extent that Hatcher's response may have intended
the meaning that Respondent was contending that Stand-
ard Homes Company was a separate employer, I have
already rejected this contention in my conclusion that
Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single
employer within the meaning of the Act. I have also
already found that the homes prefabrication and assembly
employees continue to be a part of-or are an accretion
to-the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard notwithstanding
the present assignment of these employees to the Olathe
plant. I have further found'that the Teamsters contract at
Olathe was unlawfully applied and enforced as to these
employees after they began work at the Olathe plant.
In these circumstances, it follows that Respondent by
Hatcher, on February 20, 1972, refused to bargain with
respect to the wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment with Carpenters, the recognized representa-
tive of the unit in which these employees were employed. It
likewise follows that the application of the Teamsters
Olathe contract, with its lower wage rates and different
benefits, was a unilaterial change by Respondent, through
Standard Homes Company, in the terms and conditions of
employment of these employees. Respondent continued its
refusal to bargain with Carpenters about these matters by
denying Carpenters grievance in March 1972 and also by
denying Carpenters request for arbitration in April 1972,
both of which dealt, inter alia, with the same unilateral
changes in the terms and conditions of employment of
these employees. ; And the prefabrication and assembly
employees at Olathe continue to work under the unilateral-
ly changed terms and conditions of employment imposed
upon them by the unlawful application to them of the
Teamsters Olathe contract.
In so refusing to bargain with Carpenters and unilateral-
ly changing the terms and conditions of employment of
these employees, I find that Respondent itself, and
Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company,
47 See Sewanee Coal Operators Association et al, 167 NLRB 172,
181-182, enforcement denied sub nom Tennessee Products & Chemical
Corporation v. KLR B, 423 F.2d 169 (C.A. 6, 1970). The Board decision is
binding upon me. Prudential Insurance Agents, 119 NLRB 768, reversed on
other grounds 361 U S. 477 X1960). Moreover, I am constrained to observe
that the Sixth Circuit's disagreement with the Board in the Sewanee case
stemmed mainly from its disagreement with the Board' s determination in
the underlying representation case as to the identity of the majority
representative of the unit in which, the Board found, the contract therein
had been unlawfully entered into.
48 See Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, 177 NLRB 25, enfd. 429 F.2d 1352
(CA 9, 1970).
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on and after February 20, 1972, has violated and continues
to violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 49
In reaching this conclusion I have carefully considered
each of the defenses offered by Respondent and Teamsters
at the hearing and in their briefs but reject them.
1. The defense of constructive notice. It is argued that by
placing a notice to each employee in the timecard rack at
Roe Boulevard in August 1971 informing the employees of
the expected move by Standard Homes to Olathe, as well
as through the rumors about the move which were rife at
the Roe plant thereafter, Carpenters was constructively
notified of the move and should have taken prompt action
to bargain about it. I disagree.
It is clear the Carpenters was never formally notified of
the move nor offered a reasonable opportunity to bargain
about that move or any consequence from it upon the
terms and conditions of employment of the Carpenters unit
employees.
But even if it could be held that notice to the employees of
the move and the aforementioned rumors somehow stand
on the same footing as a formal notice to the Union of an
opportunity to bargain, I would still disagree that Carpen-
ters was thereby given an adequate notice of the opportuni-
ty to bargain on this matter. For there is no indication in
the notice itself that the move would result in any change
in the terms and conditions of employment of Carpenters
unit employees. The notice merely recited in this regard
that the "new plant [at Olathe] will be occupied by
Standard Homes Company, a division of Sweet Lumber,"
and no mention was made of a separate corporation at the
Olathe location. Since the production employees of
"Standard Homes Company, a division of Sweet Lumber"
were already a part of the Carpenters unit at Roe
Boulevard, the notice provided no basis for any expecta-
tion that such employees would not continue to be a part
of that unit after the move of the "division" to Olathe.
Nor does it appear that the separate incorporation of
Standard Homes Company on November 1, 1971, was
made known to the Carpenters or the Carpenters unit
employees. In fact, despite the existence of this separate
corporation, as of November 1, 1971, the Standard Homes
production operations continued at Roe Boulevard from
November 1, 1971, into February 1972 and the production
employees continued to be paid on Respondent's checks,
as already found.
I conclude rather that the matter was timely raised by
Harding's unsuccessful effort to consult with management
the day before Coffelt, the first Carpenters unit employee
to go to Olathe, began work there.
2. Exercise of the prerogative of management rights under
the management rights clause of the Carpenters contract.
While management obviously has the right to make
management decisions under a "management rights"
contract provision this does not permit management to
avoid the obligation to bargain about any change in the
terms and conditions of employment which might result
from such management decisions. While it is true that a
labor organization may enter into an agreement in which it
waives the right to bargain about mandatory subjects of
bargaining (wages, hours, etc.) such a waiver must be "in
clear and unmistakable" language and will not readily be
implied.50 I find no clear and unmistakable language in the
management rights provision of the applicable contract
herein whereby Carpenters could be deemed to have
waived the right to bargain over reassignment of unit
employees and unit work at lower wage rates and different
benefits than they were already receiving.
3. The employees themselves agreed to the assignment at
Olathe. Since by obtaining the employees' agreement to the
assignment, Respondent thereby bypassed their bargaining
representative, this defense need not detain us long.
Bypassing of the bargaining representative in a situation
wherein an employer refuses to bargain with the employ-
ees' exclusive representative about these same matters is
the very practice inveighed against by the Supreme Court
in Katz, supra.
4. The Carpenters failed to raise the question of the
relocation of bargaining unit work and unit employees to
Olathe when Carpenters bargained with Respondent in the
spring of 1972 for a new contract covering the Carpenters Roe
Boulevard unit.
It is undisputed that no mention was made by Carpen-
ters or Respondent of the matter of the relocation of the
Standard Homes prefabrication and assembly employees
and their work to the Olathe plant, when Carpenters and
Respondent bargained in the spring of 1972 for a new
agreement covering the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard.
However, I do not believe that Carpenters' failure to
bring up the matter during these negotiations absolved
Respondent of any obligation to bargain about it. For
Carpenters is not required to engage in a futile act. The
door to bargain on this subject had already thrice been
closed in Carpenters' face before the spring 1972 negotia-
tions had begun-when Hatcher refused Harding's request
to discuss the matter on February 20, 1972, after the first
Carpenters unit employee, Coffelt, was about to begin
work at Olathe; again when Carpenters grievance over this
matter was rejected by Respondent in March 1972 and for
the third time when Carpenters request to arbitrate the
issue was also rejected by Respondent in April 1972.
5. The fact that the Carpenters contract coverage was
explicitly limited to the Roe Boulevard plant." The
agreement which was in effect at the time of the relocation
of the homes prefabrication and assembly work (and the
employees performing that work) from Roe Boulevard to
Olathe was the Carpenters Roe Boulevard contract which
was effective from June 1, 1970, to April 30, 1972.
The aforementioned management rights clause (art.
XIX) speaks of the "management of [this] plant" in the
singular. But at the time this agreement was entered into
on June 30, 1970, all of the instant work and employees
were located at the Roe Boulevard plant.
In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that this
language precludes Carpenters from bargaining over work
or employees subsequently removed from the "plant" to
another location, again, as supra, in the absence of "clear
and unmistakable" language to the contrary. For, to hold
otherwise would mean that an employer operating under a
ae See N.L.RB. v_ Benne Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962). The Timken Roller Bearing Co., v. N.LR.B., 325 F.2d 746 (C.A. 6, 1963)
so E.g., Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc., 147 NLRB 1506; cert denied 376 U.S. 971 ( 1964).
R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 539
collective-bargaining agreement containing such language
could avoid that agreement and its bargaining obligation
entirely, merely by a unilateral, shutdown of the "plant"
and removal of all plant work and employees to a location
only one city block away.
I accordingly, conclude that Respondent itself and
Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company
have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing
to bargain with Carpenters and by unilaterally changing
the terms and conditions of employment of these employ-
ees after their assignment to Olathe 51
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent and Standard Homes
Company, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce -among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent itself and by and through
Standard Homes Company has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that both companies
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since I have concluded that Respondent itself and by
and through Standard Homes Company violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act in certain respects, I shall
recommend that Respondent and Standard Homes Com-
pany recognize Carpenters as the collective bargaining
representative of the homes assembly and prefabrication
employees now working at `Olathe as a part of the
Carpenters unit of Respondent at Roe Boulevard and that
Respondent and Standard Homes bargain collectively
upon request with Carpenters as the exclusive representa-
tive of the instant homes prefabrication and assembly
employees as a part of that unit.
Having found that Respondent by and through Standard
Homes Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the Act by rendering unlawful support and assistance to
Teamsters Local 541 at the Olathe plant and enforcing that
labor organization's union security agreement, I shall
recommend that Respondent and Standard Homes Com-
pany withdraw recognition from Teamsters Local 541 as
the representative of the homes prefabrication and assem-
bly employees now working at Olathe, both until they have
complied with the bargaining order described supra, and
unless and until Teamsters Local 541 has been certified by
the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit found appropriate, infra
I shall also recommend that Respondent and Standard
Homes Company cease applying the provisions of Team-
sters Olathe contract to said employees.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully applied and
enforced the union-security provisions of said contract to
the said employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(l), (2), and
(3) of the Act, I shall further recommend that Respondent
and Standard Homes Company be required to reimburse
the present and former homes prefabrication and assembly
employees for all initiation fees, dues or other moneys
exacted from them in favor of Teamsters Local 541,
51 While I am satisfied that these violation findings soundly rest on my
other findings and the Katz decision, supra, I am constrained to observe that
the General Counsel has also established a violation of Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1)
on a separate theory which will appear infra.
I make this alternative finding in the event the Board or the courts
disagree with my conclusions-that Respondent and Standard Homes
Company are a single employer within the meaning of the Act; that the
homes prefabrication and assembly operations at Olathe remain part of, or
are an accretion to, the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard; and that the
Teamsters Olathe contract was unlawfully applied and enforced as to said
employees.
For if the Respondent and Standard Homes are separate employers
within the meaning of the Act and there has been no accretion and the
Teamsters contract was lawfully applied and enforced as to the instant
employees, I would nonetheless conclude on the basis of my other findings
supra in this section of my decision, that Respondent discontinued its
prefabrication and assembly Carpenters unit work at Roe Boulevard, on
and after February 20, 1972, without giving Carpenters an opportunity to
bargain about the effects of this action and has thereby violated and
continues to violate Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Regal Aluminum Inc, 190
NLRB.
All the elements of proof of this violation have already been found with
the possible exception of "substantial impact" or "substantial detriment" to
the employees who left the homes prefabrication and assembly operation at
Roe Boulevard to work at Olathe. I conclude that this detriment is
established by the fact that if it is assumed that Standard Homes
Company is a separate employer-at least six employees in the Carpenters
Roe Boulevard unit lost their jobs with Respondent. See Regal Aluminum,
Inc., supra.
I am not persuaded that this loss of jobs can be said to be mitigated by
the voluntary acceptance of work at Olathe by these employees. For it is
manifest that such voluntary acceptance was obtained in circumstances
involving the bypassing of their bargaining representative. See Katz, supra;
Regal Aluminum, Inc., supra
Moreover, while there is testimony by Mrs. Sweet that the Carpenters
unit employment in mid-February 1972 (presumably before the move) stood
at 15 and continued to be 15 in July 1972 (after the move) this provides no
assurance that the 6 who went to Olathe would have remained in the unit.
For there is no showing that all were qualified to perform the more highly
skilled Carpenters unit mill work (e.g., manufacture of window and door
units) which is still being tamed on at Roe Boulevard nor was there any
assurance that they would have even found employment elsewhere in the
plant (Williamson , the representative of Teamsters was told by We Long,
as previously found , that 7 employees from the Teamsters unit at Roe
Boulevard were to be laid off as the result of Standard Homes moving from
that location). Even if my finding that Standard Homes Company and
Respondent are a single employer is sustained-but my accretion and
unlawful contract application findings reversed-this detriment is also
established by the loss of hourly wages in the amount of $.565 per hour (the
difference between the journeymen carpenters rate which these employees
received at Roe Boulevard, $5.065 per hour, and the highest paid leadman
rate, $4.50 per hour, under the Teamsters Olathe contract ) and by the
potential loss of retirement benefits under the, Carpenters contract. See
Cities Service Oil Company, 159 NLRB 1204. Hatcher testified that the mill
and homes prefabrication and assembly employees had all been paid at the
journeyman ($5.06) rate. Coffelt, Schaffer, and Fisher also testified that,they
had received this rate (Coffelt with an increment) when working at Roe
Boulevard
I find inapposite, on its facts, the court's decision in Fraser and Johnston
Co. v. N.L R.B., 469 F.2d 1259 (C.A. 9. 1972). relied on in Respondent's
brief, wherein the court refused to enforce a bargaining order of the Board
to remedy a somewhat similar violation . There, unlike here, the entire plant
was shut down at one location and moved to another. Here, only a part of
the Carpenters unit has been moved and the remainder of the unit clearly
continues in existence at Roe Boulevard.
If the Board or courts uphold my violation findings based on Regal
Aluminum, supra, but reverse all my other violation findings, I would
recommend the remedy found appropriate in Regal Aluminum, rather than
the remedy which I shall recommend.
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including interest thereon at 6 percent per annum
computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International
Union of North America, etc., 138 NLRB 1142. J. Howard
Jenks d/b/a Glendora Plumbing, 165 NLRB 101, 103; 172
NLRB 1700. And it will be recommended that Respondent
and Standard Homes Company be ordered to cease giving
effect to any Teamsters checkoff authorizations of said
employees and to cease offering to pay Teamsters initiation
fees for such employees.52
It will be recommended that Respondent and Standard
Homes Company make whole each of the aforementioned
present and former employees for any loss of pay or other
benefits which they may have suffered (as the result of
Respondent's unilateral application to them of the terms
and conditions of employment of the Teamsters Olathe
contract with Standard Homes Company in late February
1972) with interest at 6 percent per annum and that they
continue such payments53 until such time as Respondent
negotiates in good faith with Carpenters to agreement or
impasse.54
Further, it will be recommended that Respondent and
Standard Homes Company preserve and make available to
the Board, upon request, all payroll records, social secunty
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary and useful to determine the
amount of moneys due under the terms of the foregoing
recommendations.
Finally, it will be recommended that the Respondent and
Standard Homes Company be required to post an
appropriate notice at their respective involved locations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a
single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Carpenters and Teamsters are both labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section III, above,
Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company
has rendered unlawful assistance and support to Teamsters
and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the Act.
4. By enforcing the provisions of the union-security
agreement of the Teamsters contract to the homes
prefabrication and assembly employees at Olathe thereby
52 I recommend that the Teamsters initiation fees, dues or any other
moneys exacted under the Teamsters Olathe contract be reimbursed to
these employees and that their checkoff authorizations no longer be
implemented in order to remedy fully the 8(a)(5) violation which I have
found, in addition to remedying the 8(a)(1),(2), and (3) violations which
were also found. For the union security provisions of the Teamsters contract
at Olathe are part and parcel of the terms and conditions of employment
unilaterally and unlawfully imposed upon these employees by Respondent
by and through Standard Homes Company
53 Such payment will be pursuant to the terms of the Carpenters contract
at Roe Boulevard which otherwise expired on April 30, 1972, because I am
unable to conclude what bargain might have been struck as to the homes
prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company, had
such employees been bargained for as part of Carpenters Roe Boulevard
unit in the negotiations for a new agreement in the spring of 1972. See H K.
Porter Company, Inc., etc. v. N.LR.B., 397 U.S. 99 (1970); Tudee Products,
Inc., 194 NLRB 1234 Nothing in this aspect of my recommended order is,
however, intended to preclude an agreement by the parties making
encouraging membership in Teamsters and discouraging
membership in Carpenters or its locals, Respondent by and
through Standard Homes Company, on and after February
21, 1972, has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
5. The following unit is appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent at its Roe Boulevard, Kansas City,
Kansas, plant and all employees primarily engaged in
the prefabrication and assembly of homes at the
Olathe, Kansas, plant of Standard Homes Company
excluding delivery truckdrivers, hardwood finishers, all
employees covered by Teamsters Local 541 contract at
the said Roe Boulevard plant; also excluding all other
employees of Standard Homes Company at its said
Olathe plant and excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, guards and supervisors at both of said plants.
6. At all times material herein Carpenters has been the
majority and exclusive representative of the aforesaid
bargaining unit.
7. By refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters
as the exclusive representative of the homes prefabrication
and assembly employees at the Standard Homes Company
Olathe plant as a part of the aforesaid bargaining unit and
by unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of said employees on and after February 20,
1972, Respondent itself and Respondent by and through
Standard Homes Company have violated Section 8(aX5)
and (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that R . L. Sweet Company, Kansas
City, Kansas , and Standard Homes Company , Olathe,
Kansas,55 their officers , agents, successors, and assigns,
shall: 56
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting Teamsters Local 541, or any other labor
organization and from otherwise interfering with the
retroactive the effect of the subsequent Carpenters agreement at Roe
Boulevard insofar as the instant Standard Homes Company employees are
concerned.
54 See Howard Johnson Company, 198 NLRB No. 98
ss Although no charge was filed against Standard Homes Company, it
was named in the complaint and its interests were fully and ably represented
by its counsel at the hearing. For these reasons and since I have found that
Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single employer within
the meaning of the Act, my recommended order shall run against both
Respondent and Standard Homes Company. J. Howard Jenks d/b/a
Glendora Plumbing, supra.
56 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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.
R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 541
representative of their employees through a labor organiza-
tion of their own choosing.
(b) Recognizing Teamsters Local 541, or any successor
thereto, as the representative of any of the employees in the
appropriate collective bargaining unit described below, for
dealing with them with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or any other terms and conditions of
employment, both until they have complied with the
provisions of this order requiring them to bargain with
Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity,
AFL-CIO, and unless and until Teamsters Local 541 has
been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative
of the employees in said appropriate unit.
(c) Performing, enforcing, or giving effect to the
collective-bargaining agreement of February 11, 1972,
between Teamsters Local 541 and Standard Homes
Company by applying or enforcing said agreement with
respect to any employees in the said appropriate unit, or by
entering into or enforcing any extension, renewal, modifi-
cation, or supplement thereof, or any superseding collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with said labor organization, by
applying and enforcing any of said extensions, renewals,
modifications, supplements, or superseding collective-bar-
gaining agreements to any employees in said appropriate
unit.
(d) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations in favor
of Teamsters by Standard Homes Company prefabrication
and assembly employees or offering to pay Teamsters
initiation fees for such employees.
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters'
District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees of R. L.
Sweet Lumber Company at its Roe Boulevard, Kansas
City, Kansas, plant and all employees primarily
engaged in the prefabrication and assembly of homes
at the Olathe, Kansas, plant of Standard Homes
Company, excluding- delivery truckdrivers, hardwood
finishers, all employees covered by Teamsters Local
541's collective-bargaining agreement at Roe Boule-
vard plant, all other employees of Standard Homes
Company at its said Olathe plant and excluding all
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors at
both of said plants.
(f) Unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and terms
and conditions of employment of any employees in the
aforesaid appropriate collective-bargaining unit.
(g) Encouraging membership in Teamsters Local 541 or
any other labor organization, or discouraging membership
in Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and
Vincinity, AFL-CIO, or any of its locals or any other labor
organization, by applying or enforcing a collective-bar-
gaining agreement containing union security provisions to
employees outside of the bargaining unit covered by said
collective-bargaining agreement or by discriminating in
any like or related manner in regard to employees' hire or
tenure of employment or any other term and condition of
employment.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Team-
sters Local 541 as the collective-bargaining representative
of the homes prefabrication and assembly employees of
Standard Homes Company both until there has been
compliance with the provisions of this Order requiring
bargaining with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas
City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, and thereafter and unless
and until Teamsters is certified by the Board as the
exclusive representative of the appropriate unit described,
supra.
(b) Reimburse each of the present and former homes
prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard
Homes Company for all initiation fees, dues, and other
moneys, if any, exacted pursuant to the terms of the union-
security agreement between Standard Homes Company
and Teamsters Local 541 on and after February 21, 1972,
as set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Carpenters'
District Council of Kansas City and, Vicinity, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Standard
Homes prefabrication and assembly employees as a part of
the appropriate unit described above, concerning the
wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment of said prefabrication and assembly employees.
(d) Make whole any present or former homes prefabrica-
tion and assembly employees of Standard Homes Compa-
ny for any loss of pay or other benefits they may have
suffered as the result of the unilateral action of Respondent
by and through Standard Homes Company in applying the
terms of Teamsters Local 541's Olathe, Kansas, collective-
bargaining agreement to said employees, with interest at 6
percent per annum, and continue such payments until such
time as Respondent and Standard 'Homes negotiate in
good faith with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas
City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, to agreement or impasse with
respect to said employees.
(e) Preserve, and make available to the Board or its
agents, all payroll and other records, as set forth in "The
Remedy" section of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
(f) Post at the Roe Boulevard plant of Respondent and
the Olathe plant of Standard Homes Company copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."57
Copies of this notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by the
appropriate representative of Respondent and by the
appropriate representative of Standard Homes Company,
57 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall be posted by each at its respective aforesaid plant
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
each at its plant to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional.Director for Region 17 within 20
days of the receipt of this Order, what steps Respondent
and Standard Homes Company have taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor
practices not found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence it has been decided that we, R. L. Sweet Lumber
Company and Standard Homes Company, have violated
the National Labor Relations Act and we have been
ordered to post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you as employ-
ees, certain rights, including the right to self-organization,
to form, join or help unions and to bargain collectively
through a representative of your own choosing. According-
ly, we give you these assurances:
WE WILL NOT recognize Teamsters Local 541 (herein
called Teamsters) as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the homes prefabrication and assembly
employees of Standard Homes Company for the
purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or
other terms and conditions of employment of these
employees or give Teamsters any other assistance or
support with respect to the representation of these
employees.
WE WILL NOT apply, enforce or give effect to the
Teamsters collective-bargaining agreement with Stand-
ard Homes Company, or any modification, extension
or renewal of such agreement, insofar as the homes
prefabrication and ' assembly employees of Standard
Homes Company are concerned.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Teamsters,
or any other labor organization, or discourage member-
ship in Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and
Vicinity, AFL-CIO, or its locals, or any other labor
organization by applying, maintaining, or enforcing the
union-security provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement between Teamsters and Standard Homes
Company upon the homes prefabrication and assembly
employees,of Standard Homes Company or by discrim-
inating in any like or related manner proscribed by the
National Labor Relations Act in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or condition
of employment of these employees.
WE WILL NO LONGER give effect to Teamsters
checkoff authorizations by Standard Homes Company
prefabrication and assembly employees nor will we
offer to pay Teamsters initiation fees for any such
employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and
Vicinity, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
the homes prefabrication and assembly employees of
Standard Homes Company as a part of the following
appropriate collective bargaining unit:
All production and maintenance employees of R.
L. Sweet Lumber Company at its Roe Boulevard,
Kansas City, Kansas, plant and all employees
primarily engaged in the prefabrication and
assembly of homes at the Olathe, Kansas, plant
of Standard Homes Company, excluding delivery
truckdrivers, hardwood finishers, all employees
covered by the Teamsters collective-bargaining
agreement at said Roe Boulevard plant, all other
employees of Standard Homes Company at its
said Olathe plant and excluding all office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors at both of said
plants.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with our employees in the exercise of any rights
guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from
Teamsters as the collective-bargaining representative of
any of the homes prefabrication and assembly employ-
ees of Standard Homes Company, both until we have
complied with the provisions of the Board's Order
requiring us to bargain with Carpenters' District
Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, and
thereafter and unless and until Teamsters is certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the above described
appropriate collective-bargaining unit.
WE WILL reimburse each of the present and former
homes prefabrication and assembly employees of
Standard Homes Company for all initiation fees, dues
and other moneys, if any, exacted from them pursuant
to the union-security provisions of the Teamsters
collective-bargaining agreement with Standard Homes
Company, with interest.
WE WILL make whole any present or former homes
prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard
Homes Company for any loss of pay or other benefits
they may have suffered as the result of the application
to them of the wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment of the Teamsters contract
with Standard Homes Company, with interest.
WE WILL bargain with Carpenters' District Council
of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the homes
prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard
Homes Company as a part of the above described
appropriate collective-bargaining unit.
R. L. SWEET LUMBER
COMPANY
(Employer)
R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 543
Dated By This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
(Representative) (Title) anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
STANDARD Hosus from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
COMPANY or covered by any other material . Any questions concern-
(Employer) ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 616-Two Gateway Center,
Dated By Fourth at State, Kansas City, Kansas 64101, Telephone
(Representative) (Title) 816-374-4434.