Rollins-Purle, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 709 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

ROLLINS-PURLE, INC.
Rollins-Purle, Inc. and Local 216, International Union
of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and General
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers Local 270, a/w the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Ind., Party to the Contract,
Case 15-CA-4043
December 22, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On September 20, 1971, Trial Examiner Fannie M,
Boyls issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt her
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, Rollins-Purle, Inc., Baton Rouge, Loui-
siana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FANNIE M. BOYLS, Trial Examiner: This case, initiated by
a charge filed on February 25 and a complaint issued on
April 26, 1971, was tried before me in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, on June 23 and 24, 1971. The complaint alleges,
and Respondent and the Party to the Contract deny, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by
unlawfully assisting and supporting the Party to the
Contract.` Subsequent to the hearing Respondent and the
General Counsel filed helpful briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case and my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after a careful
consideration of the briefs, I make the following:
194 NLRB No. 117
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
709
Respondent, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rollins
International , Inc., is a Delaware corporation having a
principal office located in Wilmington , Delaware. At the
time of the alleged unfair labor practices it had two plants,
one in Baton Rouge, Louisiana , where the unfair labor
practices are alleged to have occurred , and another in
Logan , New Jersey . During the 12-month period prior to
the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative
period , Respondent purchased and received at its Baton
Rouge plant goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 from points outside the State of Louisiana and
during the same period received revenues in excess of
$50,000 for waste disposal services performed for enterpris-
es directly engaged in commerce . On the basis of these
admitted facts, I find that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
A. Local 216, International Union of Operating
Engineers , AFL-CIO (herein called the Operating Engi-
neers), the Charging Party herein , is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
B. General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
& Helpers Local 270, a/w The International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
Amenca , Ind. (herein called Teamsters 270), Party to the
Contracts involved herein , is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing Teamsters
270 as the bargaining representative of its employees at its
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant at a time when Respondent
did not have in its employ a representative number of
employees, by thereafter entering into a collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Teamsters 270 when a majority of its
employees had not designated that Union to represent them
and by thereafter using coercive means to pressure its
employees into joining or signing checkoff authorization
cards for Teamsters 270.
In defense of its conduct-which for the most part is not
in dispute-Respondent asserts that it had already
recognized another local of the Teamsters as the bargaining
representative of its employees at a newly opened plant in
Logan, New Jersey, at the time it recognized Teamsters 270
as the representative of its Baton Rouge employees, that it
had prior to that time agreed with the Teamsters
International that it would negotiate a master contract on a
national level to cover the Logan as well as the Baton
Rouge and other plants which Respondent planned to open
and that the Baton Rouge plant should be considered an
accretion to the Logan plant unit of employees or to the
nationwide unit which was planned. Respondent also
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contends that its recognition of Teamsters 270 and its
execution of a contract with that labor organization was
lawful because at the time recognition was extended on
September 26, 1970, its only two employees were then
members of Teamsters 270. It further contends that even if
its original recognition of Teamsters 270 and the execution
of a contract with it were unlawful, Respondent's conduct
should be considered as condoned by the employee's failure
to reject the contract or by their acceptance of it when they
learned about it.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth, Respondent's
defenses are rejected and it is found that Respondent did,
as alleged in the complaint, unlawfully assist and support
Teamsters 270.
B. Rollins International Inc. and its Affiliates,
Including Respondent; The Grand Design of
Representation by Teamsters Unions for all
Plants to be Opened by Respondent
Rollins International , Inc., whose headquarters are in
Wilmington , Delaware, is the parent of approximately 35
affiliated corporations engaged in various types of business.
One of these affiliates is Respondent , Rollins-Purle, Inc. It
was recently formed to receive, treat , and dispose of
industrial waste . The parent and its affiliates have
interlocking officers and management representatives. One
of the affiliates , Matlack, Inc., with headquarters in
Lansdowne , Pennsylvania, has had a contract with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters since 1958. It is
engaged primarily in the transportation of bulk commodi-
ties for various enterprises , including Respondent and other,
affiliates of Rollins International, Inc.
John C. Peet, Jr., vice president and General Counsel of
Rollins International , Inc., has dealt with the Teamsters
International and various locals in connection with
contract negotiations for Matlack and numerous other
corporations for many years. Because Matlack was under
contract with a Teamsters union at each of its terminals and
because it was planned that Matlack would transport some
of the bulk commodities to be used by Respondent in
processing and treating industrial waste, Peet decided that
if employees of Respondent were to be represented by any
union , he wanted it to be the Teamsters . This is because he
wanted to minimize the likelihood of trouble between
Teamster members and members of other unions with
whom they might come in contact. Accordingly, in
February or early March 1970, according to Peet, after
Respondent was incorporated and after its first plant,
known as the Logan , New Jersey, plant, was opened but not
yet operational i Peet, accompanied by Robert H. Shertz,
past president of Matlack and executive vice president of
Rollins International, Inc., went to the Teamsters Interna-
tional headquarters in Washington , D.C. and proposed to
i The Logan plant was then open but in a pilot stage and was not
dedicated until sometime in June 1970
2 A letter dated March 2, 1970, from Winters to Peet purporting to
confirm a conversation and understanding reached at the International
offices of the Teamsters on March 2, 1970, indicates that Respondent
probably had 18 employees at the Logan plant on that date and that it had
recognized Teamsters Local 312 as their bargaining agent. The letter also
recites that Peet had requested and the Teamsters had agreed that a
national agreement covering all employees of Respondent, wherever
Teamster representatives there that a national contract be
entered into which would cover all the facilities which were
planned for Respondent throughout the United States. Peet
conceded at the hearing that no question was asked either
at that meeting or prior thereto as to whether the Teamsters
represented a majority of Respondent's employees at its
only plant then opened-the Logan plant. The Teamster
representatives present, including Charles D. Winters,
general organizer for the Teamsters International and
president of Teamsters 270, agreed to Peet's proposal.2
Thereafter, following some oral discussions with Team-
ster representatives, Peet met with them in Miami, Florida,
on February 3, 1971, and submitted a draft of a proposed
national agreement between Respondent and the Team-
sters, including, among other things, a provision that wages
and hours would be negotiated at the local level. The
national agreement was not finalized and signed until April
1, 1971.
In the meantime, as hereinafter related, Respondent on
November 20, 1970, signed an agreement with Teamsters
270 covering only its Baton Rouge employees.
It was not until May 21, 1971, subsequent to the
execution of the national agreement, that Respondent
signed a contract with another local of the Teamsters
(Local 312) covering the Logan, New Jersey, plant
employees. This contract was made retroactive to April 1,
1971.3
Clearly under the facts shown in this record, Respon-
dent's contention that a unit of its employees in its Baton
Rouge plant should be treated as an accretion to a unit of
its employees in the Logan plant or to any other unit must
be rejected. Even where an employer has more than one
plant in a geographical or administrative area-as Respon-
dent did not-the Board has long held that a single plant
unit, being one of the unit types specifically mentioned in
the statute,- is "presumptively appropriate," and other
things being equal, should prevail over other types. Temko
Aircraft Corporation, 121 NLRB 1085, 1088, footnote 11;
Dixie Bell Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631. Here, the criteria
long recognized by the Board and courts as supporting the
appropriateness of a single plant unit are present.
Respondent, a newly formed corporation, had no history of
collective, bargaining. Its two plants which commenced
operating in 1970, as well as its third plant at Houston
which was opened on the first day of the hearing in this
case, are geographically remote from each other. There
have been no permanent transfers of nonsupervisory
employees from one plant to the other. The Baton Rouge
employees had been hired from the immediate area in
which the plant is located. The plant manager at Baton
Rouge, subject to' a limitation as to the number of
employees permitted by Respondent's director of opera-
tions in Delaware, is responsible for the hiring and firing of
located, would be negotiated Rollins, chairman of the board of directors of
Rollins International, Inc., estimated at that time that Respondent would
eventually have 100 plants throughout the United States
3 At the time of the occurrence of the unfair labor practices alleged in
this case, Respondent had only the Logan and Baton Rouge plants
operating On the first day of the hearing herein, on June 23, 1971,
Respondent opened a third plant in Houston, Texas A fourth plant, in
Chicago, Illinois , was in the planning stage.
ROLLINS-PIJRLE, INC.
employees and for the day-to-day operations at Baton
Rouge. Moreover, the job classifications, wage,rates, and
other conditions of employment of employees in the Logan
and Baton Rouge plants are not uniform. In addition,
another labor organization, the Operating Engineers,- was
seeking to represent Respondent's Baton Rouge employees
in the single plant unit .4
In contending that the Baton Rouge employees should be
considered as a part of the Logan unit or a nationwide unit
to be established, Respondent has completely ignored
Section 7 of the Act which is aimed at protecting employees
in their right to join a union of their choice or to reject
representation by any union. As the Board pointed out in
Melbet Jewelry Co. Inc., 180 NLRB No. 24, "Section 9(b)
[of the Act] directs the Board to select units to `assure to
employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights
guaranteed by the Act'-which rights, of course, are those
set out in Section 7 . . . . We will not . . . under the guise
of accretion, compel a group of employees, who may
constitute a separate appropriate unit, to be included in an
overall unit without allowing those employees the opportu-
nity of expressing their preference in a secret election or by
some other evidence that they wish to authorize the Union
to represent them."
C. Respondent's Recognition of and Contractual
Relations with Teamsters 270 as Bargaining
Representative of its Baton Rouge Employees
Other than several members of its administrative
personnel, Respondent had no employees at its Baton
Rouge plant until September 26, 1970, when it hired a
driver (J. Hill) and a drives`-helper (A.L. Stephens) who
were referred by Teamsters 270 at Respondent's request .5
No further employees were hired until October 12. By
November 20, 1970, Respondent had 10 employees in the
production, maintenance, and driver unit (the classifica-
tions which Respondent and the Teamsters now recognize
as properly in the appropriate unit). By the date of the
hearing in June 1971 it had 30 such employees on its
payroll.
On September 26, the same day that Teamsters 270 sent
Respondent the first two unit employees for the Baton
Rouge plant, Teamsters 270's president, Winters, wrote
Peet in Wilmington, Delaware, demanding that his union
be recognized as the bargaining representative of the
employees of the Baton Rouge plant and enclosing a
"rider" to a national contract (not yet in existence) which
he asked Peet to sign. Thereafter Peet and Baton Rouge
Plant Manager Morgan Jones met with Winters and the
Teamsters' attorney, John Ormond, in New Orleans on
September 30 to discuss a contract for the Baton Rouge
operation. According to Peet, the parties reached an
agreement and signed a handwritten draft on the same day
but the agreement was not typed up 'and mailed to
Respondent at Baton Rouge until some time in November.
Thereafter, on November 20, Morgan Jones, acting for
4 Spartan Industries, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 406 F.2d 1002, 1005 (C.A 5),
enforcing 169 NLRB 309, Sheraton-Kauai Corp., 177 NLRB No. 13, enfd.
429 F.2d 1352 (C_A 9); Melbet Jewelry Co Inc, 180 NLRB No. 24; Pix
Manufacturing Company, 181 NLRB No. 17
5 The helper, Stephens , was terminated on October 2 and'replaced by
711
Respondent, and Charles D. Winters, acting for Teamsters
270, signed what was described as an "interim agreement"
covering the production, maintenance, and office employ-
ees at the Baton Rouge plant and containing a union
security provision.6 According to Winters, the parties had
about four meetings before this contract was signed and
Peet was present at all except the last of these meetings; the
contract was typed up about 3 weeks prior to November 20
and signed on the latter date. I believe that Peet was
mistaken in his testimony that final agreement on the
interim agreement was reached on September 30, for he
conceded that after September 30 and before November 20,
three provisions in the handwritten draft were eliminated
because they were more appropriate for a national
agreement than for one on the local level.
In any event, I do not regard it as important, for purposes
of this case, whether the interim agreement was finalized on
September 30 or on November 20. The production and
maintenance employees and drivers at the Baton Rouge
plant, as I have found, constitute the unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining at all times relevant to this
case. Respondent concededly did not have in its employ a
representative number of employees in the appropriate unit
at Baton Rouge on September 30 and therefore could not
then have lawfully recognized Teamsters 270 as the
representative of such employees. Nor could Respondent
on November 20 lawfully recognize Teamsters 270 and
enter into a bargaining agreement with that labor
organization because, even assuming that it then had in its
employ what might be considered a representative number
of employees, a majority of those employees, as demon-
strated below, had not designated Teamsters 270 as their
bargaining representative.
When the interim agreement was signed on November
20, Respondent had 10 employees in the production,
maintenance, and truckdriver unit which Teamsters 270
later purported to represent and for which the Operating
Engineers had filed a representation petition on February
8, 1971. Seven of these 10 at no time ever authorized
Teamsters 270 to represent them (Davis, Honore, Spring,
Johnson, Walker, Forman, and White). The other three, at
the time they were hired, were already members of some
Teamster local. Hill was a member of Teamsters 270;
Aubrey Kirkland was a member of a Teamster local in
Jackson, Mississippi, and did not know of any claim that
Teamsters 270 represented the employees until March 1971,
after which he transferred his membership to Teamsters
270; and Phillips was a member of Baton Rouge Teamsters
Local 5 but transferred his membership to Teamsters 270
when Superintendent Rogers told him he would have to do
that before he could be put to work.
It follows from what has been said above that Respon-
dent gave unlawful assistance to Teamsters 270 by
recognizing it as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its Baton Rouge employees and entering into a collective-
bargaining contract with it and that the November 20, 1970,
contract could not properly constitute a bar to an election
another helper, Phillips, on October 5. Phillips was a member of Teamsters
Local 5, with whom Teamsters 270 had been having a jurisdictional dispute
prior to September 26, by which date they had adjusted their differences
6 The office employees classification, as Peet explained, has
subsequently been negotiated out of the unit considered appropriate
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
petition filed by the Operating Engineers on February 8,
1971.
D. Further Assistance given by Respondent to
Teamsters 270 Following the Filing of Representation
Petition on February 8, 1971, by the Operating
Engineers
1. Disclosure by Respondent and Teamsters 270
of their interim agreement and its union security
provision after Operating Engineers filed its
representation petition
In early January after some of the employees decided
that they needed a union to represent them, the Operating
Engineers commenced an organizational campaign at the
Baton Rouge plant. On February 8, 1971, that labor
organization filed a representation petition with the Board.
On February 16 counsel for Teamsters 270 wrote the
Regional Director of the Board that his Union had a
contract, dated November 20, 1970, with Respondent
covering the Baton Rouge employees and that such
contract constituted a bar to the representation petition
filed by the Operating Engineers. He enclosed a copy of the
contract. On February 19 counsel for Respondent wrote the
Board's Regional Director a similar letter, enclosing a copy
of the contract. Thereafter on February 25, 1971, the
Operating Engineers withdrew its representation petition
and filed the charges here involved.
Until the disclosure of the November 20, 1970, contract
in the manner set forth above, neither the employees nor
the Operating Engineers knew of its existence. Upon being
informed by the Operating Engineers of the existence of the
contract, a number of the employees in the latter part of
February requested and were granted an interview with
Plant Manager Morgan Jones and Superintendent William
Rogers about the contract. They requested a copy of the
purported contract but Jones said that he could not furnish
a copy and could not answer any questions about it until he
had consulted Respondent's counsel. One of the employees,
Honore, had called Teamsters 270 Business Agent Albin
the night before for information about the contract and
requested copies for the employees. Albin replied that
copies had probably not yet been run off but that he would
leave a copy at the plant on the following day. He failed to
do so. In a letter to Teamsters 270 in New Orleans, dated
March 2, 1971, and signed by 11 of the employees, a request
was made that copies of the contract be sent to each
employee in care of employee M. C. Gullett. In response to
the latter request a copy of the printed but unsigned interim
agreement which had been executed on November 20 was
sent to each of the employees on March 9.
On March 16, 1971, Teamsters 270 President Winters
wrote the employees, calling their attention to the union
security provision of the contract which required each
employee to become a member on or after the 31st day
following his date of hire and informing each of the amount
of his initiation fee ($75) and dues ($7 a month). Enclosed
with each letter was a checkoff, authorization form. Each
employee was informed that he 'must execute such
authorization and return it to the Teamsters office,
postmarked no later than March 28, 1971.
In a letter dated March 18, 1971, from Teamsters 270
Business Agent Albin to each employee, notice was given of
a special meeting of the employees on March 28 to discuss
the contract and other matters. The employees were
advised that they could sign and turn in their checkoff
authorization cards at that meeting.
In a letter dated March 24, 1971, Teamsters 270 reminded
each employee who had been in Respondent's employ for
30 days or-more of the union security provision of the
contract and stated:
This letter will serve as a seventy-two (72) hour notice
that if no arrangements have been made by you to pay
your initiation fee and/or delinquent dues, an official
knock-off notice will be sent to your Company.
Following receipt of this letter the employees requested
and were granted a meeting with management representa-
tives on March 26. 'Representing management were the
newly appointed plant manager, Herschel Scott, Transpor-
tation Manager Cliff Rogers, and Supervisor W.W. Stones
(who took minutes of the meeting which were introduced in
evidence as G. C. Exh. 17). Employee Honore accused
Respondent of having committed an unfair labor practice
in recognizing and entering into the agreement with
Teamsters 270 and a few questions were asked about why
Respondent had not complied with terms of the contract,
but most questions concerned the union shop provision of
the contract and the 72-hour notice the employees had
received. Scott told the employees that the "Company does
recognize a contract at this time" but assured them: "There
will be no immediate layoffs of personnel, but I cannot
commit the Company on future developments."
Only two employees attended the Teamsters 270 meeting
held on March 28. These were a driver, Hill, and a driver
helper, Phillips, the only two employees who at that time
were already members of Teamsters 270. Each signed a
checkoff authorization card at the conclusion of the
meeting. Hill was appointed by Albin as temporary union
steward.
2. Attempts by Respondent to force employees to
accept Teamsters 270 as their bargaining
representative
Following the revelation to the employees in February
1971 that Respondent had in November 1970 executed a
contract with Teamsters 270 covering them, management
representatives in various ways sought to induce or force
them to accept Teamsters 270 as their bargaining
representative.
Most of the coercive pressure was applied by Transporta-
tion Manager Cliff Rogers. In about mid-March he
questioned driver Dixon about the latter's interview with a
National Labor Relations Board investigator and asked
Dixon why he had gone for the interview. When Dixon
explained that he had wanted to know whether the
Teamsters 270 contract was supposed to be in effect and
that some of the fellows in the operations department had
asked him to make a statement to the investigator, Rogers
told Dixon, "Well, I hope you realize that you are working
for me and not for those fellows in operations." This
statement, I find, constituted a veiled threat of job reprisal
ROLLINS-PURLE, INC. 713
against Dixon for engaging in a protected concerted
activity.
Shortly after the employees had received Teamsters 270's
letters of March 16 and March 24 in which they were
apprised of the union security provision of the contract,
furnished with checkoff authorization cards and given a 72-
hour notice to sign, Rogers told Dixon and another driver,
Rogillio, that they "might as well go ahead and sign" the
checkoff authorization because Teamsters 270 would be
their bargaining representative if there was one, and they
"would have to loin." Dixon replied that they could receive
his money but they could not make him like belonging to
Teamsters 270. Shortly thereafter Rogers instructed Dixon
to see Rogillio before leaving the plant. When Dixon did so,
Rogillio told Dixon that Rogers had instructed him to tell
Dixon "to quit bad-mouthing Local 270." Dixon did not
sign the checkoff authorization until April 21 and when he
did so, he wrote on it, "not good for over $25."
Nevertheless, Respondent deducted $45 from his next
paycheck.
On or about March 29 Rogers asked driver Dykes
whether he had signed up with Jerry Hill, the Teamsters 270
steward, yet and Dykes replied that he had not. Rogers told
him "to go ahead and sign." Dykes signed a checkoff
authorization card the next day.
A couple of days later Rogers again asked Dykes whether
he had signed and when Dykes replied that he had, Rogers
instructed him to tell driver-helper Bellue to sign. Dykes
thereafter gave the message to Bellue. On the next day,
Bellue telephoned Rogers and asked whether he had in fact
sent Bellue the message that he should "go, ahead and join
the Union" and Rogers replied that he had. Bellue
thereafter signed a Teamsters 270 checkoff card on April 3,
1971.
Just before Rogillio was hired as a driver on December 7,
1970, he asked Rogers whether there would be a union at
the plant and Rogers replied that there "possibly" would be
one and if so it would be Teamsters 270 but told Rogillio
not to worry because Rogers would tell him when to join.
On the morning of April 2, Rogers came to Rogillio and
told him it was time for him to sign up with Teamsters 270.
He assured Rogillio that he would help with the money
involved. Thereafter, on the same day, Rogillio signed a
checkoff authorization card.
In May, shortly after $45 had been deducted from
Dixon's paycheck, in partial payment for Teamsters 270
dues and the initiation fee, Rogers invited Dixon to take a
car ride with him and during the course of the ride told
Dixon that he had to help Rogers. Rogers explained that
"the man" (not specifically identified in the record) had
called Rogers and told him that Rollins International, Inc.,
had about 1000 employees represented by the Teamsters
and that Rollins International, Inc., was "not going to have
a little handful of people down here represented by another
organization." Rogers told Dixon that he had talked "the
man" out of turning Baton Rouge plant transportation
' One of these employees, David Ardom, was told by Rogers when
being hired on March 9, 1971, that he would be made a permanent driver
at the end of a 90-day probationary period At the end of the 90 days when
he asked Rogers about his status , Rogers assured him not to worry about
his job but that he could not be given permanent status because Teamsters
270 Business Agent Albin had said he would not have Ardoin in the Local.
work over to Matlack, another affiliate of Rollins
International, Inc., by assuring "the man" that if an
election was ever held, he would practically guarantee that
his men would vote for the Teamsters. When "the man"
asked Rogers how he could be so sure of himself, Rogers
replied that "if you hire the right people you can be sure of
yourself," adding that his men "had never let him down."
Rogers' car came to a halt at a point where drivers
Rogillio and Welch were working and he repeated to them
the substance of the message that he had lust related to
Dixon. At the conclusion of the conversation he told all
three men that they were going to have to use what
influence they had on employees in operations to induce
them to support the Teamsters if an election was held. He
also told the men that the money which had been deducted
from their paychecks would be returned to them and that
when they received the money, he wanted them "to go right
back and sign one of those cards with the Teamsters
Local."
Within 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, Rogers approached four
of the drivers or trainees, Rogillio , Ardoin, A. Kirkland,
and Dykes and asked them: "Do you all think you can talk
to any of the operations bunch to sway them . . . into
voting for Local 270, because if not . . . they will lock this
place up and move it." He assured the four men that if they
voted for Teamsters 270, they would not have to worry
about a job because if the business moved, they could move
with the business and work for it elsewhere. He also told
them that their money which had been checked off for the
Teamsters would be returned to them but he wanted them,
when they received the money, to sign up with the
Teamsters again.?
Plant Manager Herschel Scott also sought to force
Teamsters 270 upon the Baton Rouge employees as their
bargaining representative. One afternoon early in April,
after operations employee Marvin Gullett had earlier
declined an invitation by Union Steward Hill to represent
the operations employees in a meeting between manage-
ment and Teamsters 270 representatives, Gullett was
summoned to Plant Manager Scott's offices Hill and
Teamsters 270 Business Agent Albin were present with
Scott. Scott immediately walked into a small adjoining
office and Gullett followed him. He told Scott that the
operations employees had not authorized him to attend this
meeting and he did not want to be there. Scott insisted,
however, that Gullett should attend the meeting despite
Gullett's insistence that there were two groups involved in
everything at the plant and that he, Gullett, was there
against his will. Scott ushered Gullett back into the office
where Hill and Albin were waiting. On Albin's insistence
that he see Gullett alone for a few minutes; Hill and Scott
left the room. Gillett told Albin, as he had told Scott that
he was there against his will, was not authorized to
represent anyone and that he and the other operations
employees did- not want--to take any position until the
controversy between the Operating Engineers and Team-
8 Gullett was not an official spokesman for the operations employees,
but in the March 2 letter signed by Gullett and 10 othei employees,
Teamsters 270 was requested to send a copy of the bargaining agreement to
each of the employees at Gullett's address. Gullett had also asked Scott to
hold a meeting with all the employees on March 26.
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sters was settled. Albin replied that he was only there to do
his job and asked Gullett whether he was getting paid a
shift differential. Gullett replied that he was not. Thereaf t-
er, Scott, Hill and Transportation Manager Rogers joined
them and Albin brought up for discussion a complaint that
one of the drivers was not getting his full pay and the fact
that shift differentials were not being paid. Scott stated that
the shift differentials would be paid and that payments
would be made retroactive. At the conclusion of the
meeting, Scott apologized to Gullett for having put him "on
the spot" but reiterated that he felt it was best that Gullett
attend.
3., Conclusions regarding Respondent's conduct
following disclosure of the November 20 contract
to its employees
It has already been found that Respondent unlawfully
assisted and supported Teamsters 270 by recognizing that
labor organization as the bargaining representative of its
Baton Rouge employees and entering into the November
20 contract with it when a majority of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit had not designated Teamsters
270 to represent them. The fact that 12 employees,
apparently a majority, signed checkoff authorization cards
for Teamsters 270 in March and April 1971, after being
informed of the November 20 contract containing a
compulsory membership clause and after receiving that
Union's notice that the discharge penalty clause of the
contract would be invoked if the employees did not sign
within 72 hours, does not at all support Respondent's
argument that its earlier unlawful assistance to Teamsters
270 was in some way, wiped out or condoned by the
employees' acceptance of the contract and its terms. It is
clear from the record that Teamsters 270 never at any time
represented an uncoerced majority of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit at the Baton Rouge plant.
Respondent's assistance to and support of Teamsters 270
was of the most flagrant kind. When most of the employees
failed immediately to heed the Union's 72-hour notice,
Respondent again came to the Union's support by making
a veiled threat of job reprisal against one employee for
cooperating with a Board agent who was investigating the
unfair labor practice charge; by specifically directing some
of the employees to sign the checkoff authorizations; by
sending word to one employee to stop criticizing Teamsters
270; by threatening a number of the drivers that
Respondent would turn its transportation work over to
another affiliate of Rollins International, Inc., if Respon-
dent's drivers did not select Teamsters 270 to represent
them; by soliciting the aid of a number of the drivers in
inducing operations employees to designate Teamsters 270
as their bargaining representative and warning the drivers
that Respondent would close its Baton Rouge plant and
move its, business if those employees did not accept
Teamsters 270; by telling a number of employees that
Respondent would return to them the money Respondent
had already checked off from their paychecks but that
when they received it, they should immediately sign up with
9 The Union had prior to the hearing returned to Respondent for
distribution to the employees a check covering the amounts of dues or
initiation fees collected from the employees.
Teamsters 270 again; and by coercing an operations
employee, despite his expressed unwillingness, to attend a
meeting between Respondent's representatives and Team-
sters 270 representatives. This conduct constituted further
assistance to and support of Teamsters 270, in violation of
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By recognizing Teamsters 270 as the bargaining
representative of its Baton Rouge employees at a time when
Respondent did not have in its employ a representative
number of employees, by entering into a collective-
bargaining agreement with that labor organization when a
majority of the employees had not designated it to represent
them and by later giving effect to said agreement, including
its union security provision, and coercing employees to sign
checkoff authorizations for Teamsters 270, Respondent has
unlawfully assisted and supported Teamsters 270 in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2)
and' (1) of the Act, my recommended Order will require that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.'
Respondent will be required to cease and desist from
maintaining or giving effect to any collective-bargaining
agreement with Teamsters 270 covering Respondent's
employees at its Baton Rouge plant and to withdraw and
withhold recognition from that labor organization as the
representative of such employees unless and until it is
certified by the Board as their bargaining representative.
Nothing herein, however, shall be construed as requiring
Respondent to vary any wage or substantive feature of its
relations with its Baton Rouge employees which Respon-
dent has established in the performance of its contract with
Teamsters 270.'
Respondent announced at the hearing that it was
reimbursing its employees for the sums deducted from their
paychecks pursuant to the checkoff authorizations they had
signed.9 In view of the fact, however, that the employees
had not actually received reimbursement at the time of the
hearing and of the further fact that Respondent had
instructed some of the employees to sign up with the
Teamsters 270 again as soon as they received reimburse-
ment, my recommended Order will require Respondent, if
it has not already done so, to reimburse its employees for all
such amounts deducted from their paychecks prior to the
date of compliance with this recommended Order.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the' Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10
10 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
ROLLINS-PURLE, INC.
ORDER
Respondent, Rollins-Purle, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Furnishing assistance or support to General Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 270,
a/w The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., or any
other labor organization of its employees at its Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, plant.
(b) Recognizing Teamsters 270 as the representative of
any of its Baton Rouge plant employees for the purpose of
dealing with them concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or
conditions of employment, unless and until the National
Labor Relations Board shall certify Teamsters 270 as such
representative.
(c) Giving effect to its agreement with Teamsters 270
covering employees of its Baton Rouge plant, or to any
extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or
to any superseding agreement, until and unless Teamsters
270 shall have been certified by the Board as the
representative of said employees; but nothing herein shall
be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon
any wage or other substantive feature of its relations with
said employees, which it has established in the performance
of any such agreement, or prejudice the assertion by said
employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
(d) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations hereto-
fore executed by its Baton Rouge plant employees,
authorizing the deduction of periodic dues or initiation fees
from wages for remittance to Teamsters 270, prior to the
date of compliance with this order.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its Baton Rouge plant employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Team-
sters 270 as the exclusive bargaining representative of
employees at its Baton Rouge plant, unless and until said
labor organization shall have been certified as such
representative by the Board.
(b) Reimburse employees of its Baton Rouge plant, if it
has not already done so, for any periodic dues or initiation
fees deducted from their paychecks for transmittal to
Teamsters 270, in the manner set forth in the section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "Remedy."
(c) Post at its plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 15, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
715
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
Section 10248 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
11 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to,a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assist or support General Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local
270, a/w The International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Ind., or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT give effect to or operate under any
agreement with Teamsters 270 covering employees of
this plant unless and until the National Labor Relations
Board shall have certified that Union as your bargain-
ing representative. This does not mean, however, that
we will take away from you any wage increase or
change any condition of your employment merely
because it may have been required under a term of
Teamsters 270's contract.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff card which
you may have signed, authorizing us to deduct union
dues or initiation fees from your wages and pay them to
Teamsters 270, and will reimburse you for any amounts
so deducted if you have not already been reimbursed.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from
Teamsters 270 as your bargaining representative and
will not recognize it as your bargaining representative
unless and until such Union has been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as your representative.
All of you are free to join or support, or not to join or
support, any union.
ROLLINS-PURLE, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, T 6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361.