Ryder Technical Institute

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 570 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Radio Television Technical School , Inc. t/a Ryder
Technical Institute and Local 773, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America . Case 4-CA-5504
October 10, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On April 28, 1972, Trial Examiner Herzel H. E.
Plaine issued his Decision in this proceeding. There-
after, Respondent filed exceptions and a 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority 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 his recommended Order.'
The Trial Examiner properly concluded that it
would not accord with Board policy to defer to the
decision of the arbitrator who ruled that Respondent
was under no obligation to pay the 1970 Christmas
bonus because it was a gift or gratuity and therefore
a "purely a discretionary matter." As the Trial Exam-
iner observed, the arbitrator "ignored a long line of
Board and Court precedent construing the Act" as
requiring employers to bargain about such payments
where, as here, they were a regular and well estab-
lished part of the employees' compensation. Accord-
ingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner, on the basis
of the test laid down in Spielberg Manufacturing Com-
pany, 112 NLRB 1084, and recently reiterated in Col-
lyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB No. 150, that the
Board is not bound by the arbitrator's award which
was "clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of
the Act."2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, Radio Television Technical School, Inc.
t/a Ryder Technical Institute , its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
MEMBER KENNEDY , dissenting:
Contrary to my colleagues, I would honor the
award of the arbitrator as to the Christmas bonus and
would dismiss the complaint in this case. I agree with
the recent decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, in N.L.R.B. v. Progress Bulletin Co.,
443 F.2d 1369 (1971), "that the bringing of a case such
as this is an imposition on the board and the courts."
' Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby denied
because the record, the exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues
and positions of the parties
2
Member Fanning finds the dissent unpersuasive In his opinion , Member
Kennedy does not address himself to the principal issue, namely, whether the
arbitrator's award is "repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act "
Although the dissent cites NLRB. v. Progress Bulletin Company, 443 F.2d
1369 (C.A 9), which states that cases involving the question of deferral to
arbitration are "an imposition on the board and the courts," Member Fan-
ning regards that declaration as dictum in view of the court's action in
nevertheless deciding the case by holding that the Board was correct in
finding that the issue of the employer's discontinuance of the Christmas
bonus "was not required to be arbitrated" and that the employer's conduct
constituted a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(aX5) and ( 1) of the
Act.
The dissent relies on NLRB. v Progress Bulletin Co., supra, which
involved the question of whether the Board should initially defer to the
contractual grievance-arbitration procedure While Member Penello might
agree with deferring in that sitation, he, however, is of the view that the issue
presented here is different in that we have arbitration award before us and
therefore, unlike in Progress Bulletin Co, must determine whether the Spiel-
berg standards have been met.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HERZEL H. E. PLAINS, Trial Examiner: Respondent, a
technical trade school with locations in three cities, had a
collective-bargaining contract with the Charging Party (the
Union), covering the instructors and laboratory assistants
of the school at Allentown, Pennsylvania. This was a first
contract, for the period October 1970 to October 1971, fol-
lowing certification of the Union in the summer of 1970.
At Christmas time 1970, Respondent discontinued,
without bargaining with the Union, a Christmas payment to
the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown
school, customarily made each year for the previous 20
years, originally in the form of useful articles of value and
in more recent years in cash. Respondent nevertheless con-
tinued to make the Christmas payment to the nonunion
employees of the school, including the instructors and labo-
ratory assistants at the other two school locations in Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, and Pennsauken, New Jersey.
The issue is whether Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by
unilaterally discontinuing the Christmas payment to its un-
ion employees without bargaining with the Union.' At the
time of trial the discontinuance encompassed Christmas
1971 as well as Christmas 1970.
Respondent contends that the Christmas payments
were gifts and not part of wages, and that its (initial) collec-
tive-bargaining contract with the employees did not em-
1 While the Union's charge, filed March 12, 1971, also claimed a violation
of Section 8(a)(3), on the ground of discrimination between union and non-
union employees and alleged reprisal against the union employees for selec-
tion and support of the Union , the complaint, filed December 17, 1971, did
not include an 8(a)(3) allegation
199 NLRB No. 85
RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE
body any obligation to continue to make such payments.
General Counsel and the Union contend that the Christmas
payments had been regularized into an annual bonus that
was part of the employees' compensation, and that the con-
tract provisions for maintenance of conditions of employ-
ment relating to wages, hours, and overtime differential that
were in effect at the time of signing the agreement continued
Respondent's obligation to pay the Christmas bonus and
imposed the resultant duty (flowing from Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act) to refrain from altering the obligation without no-
tice to, and opportunity for, the Union to bargain about any
change.
A second, indeed preliminary, issue is whether there
should be a decision on the merits in view of the fact that
the Union took the matter to arbitration under its collective-
bargaining contract with the Respondent and the arbitrator
decided (in July 1971) that Respondent was not required "to
pay 1970 cash bonus to instructors of Allentown" school.
The issue turns on whether deference should be given to the
arbitrator's award.
While it would have been logical to decide, and no
doubt preferable to have been able to decide, the prelimi-
nary issue of giving or refusing deference to the arbitrator's
award without a full trial before the Board, it became appar-
ent in the opening argument at trial that there was no record
of agreed facts, or facts found by the arbitrator, upon which
a fair ruling could be made. Accordingly, the case was tried
in full on January 26-27, 1972, at Allentown, Pennsylvania.
General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation operating,
for profit, schools for the teaching of trades in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey. The complaint involves the Allentown,
Pennsylvania, school.
In the conduct of its business Respondent has had
annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and has made
annual purchases of goods valued in excess of $3,000 from
points directly outside Pennsylvania.
Respondent is engaged, as it admitted, in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Union is, as Respondent also admitted, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Christmas Payments
Respondent's employees comprise instructors, labora-
tory assistants, directors and assistant directors of the
schools (some of whom also carry teaching loads as instruc-
tors), salesman or recruiters, and library, office, and mainte-
nance personnel.
At the Allentown school there are 15 full-time instruc-
tors, including assistant directors who also instruct, 2 part-
time instructors, and 4 laboratory assistants, according to
571
instructor Robert Milot, who has served as union steward
for the 2 bargaining units of instructors and laboratory
assistants, respectively, at the Allentown school since their
unionization in 1970. Having a certain number of directors
or assistant directors at the schools at all times when func-
tioning is required by state law governing technical schools,
according to Respondent's President Michael Freedland.
President Freedland testified that in 1950 he began the
practice of giving employees Christmas gifts, such as sports
jackets, trays, wallets, hams, and turkeys; but that in 1965
or 1966 he switched to money payments. Freedland claimed
to have used each employee's work performance, longevity,
enthusiasm, recommendation of his supervisor, and
Respondent's financial condition in deciding on the size of
the Christmas payment to each. Nevertheless it appeared
from Freedland's testimony that every employee (including
the supervisors) received a Christmas payment, and from
the record of payments (Exh. GC-2), as clarified by Freed-
land and Milot, that at least in the case of the instructors
and laboratory assistants at the Allentown school, a pattern
had emerged with the cash payments in the 4 years of 1966
through 1969.
Thus it appeared, as in 1969, that full-time instructors
with service of 1 year and over were receiving a Christmas
payment of $50, and that those instructors with less than 1
year service, and part-time instructors and laboratory assist-
ants, were receiving a Christmas payment of $25. Assistant
directors, such as Fred Heck and Leibensperger, received
$200, Director Frey received $300, and the overall executive
director of all three schools, Robert Reidy, received $500.2
On payments of over $25, Respondent made income
tax and social security tax withholdings pursuant to Internal
Revenue Service Regulations (which apparently exempts
from withholding payments of $25 or less).
B. The Initial Contract Negotiations
and Terms
The bargaining unit of Allentown school instructors
was certified by the Board June 22, 1970, and the bargaining
unit of Allentown school laboratory assistants was certified
July 2, 1970, both represented by the Union. Thereafter the
Union and Respondent engaged in collective bargaining,
resulting in the initial 1-year contract that went into effect
October 1, 1970.
The Christmas payment or bonus was not directly and
specifically the subject of bargaining between the parties
and was not mentioned as such in the contract. However,
Steward Milot, who was active in the contract negotiations,
testified without contradiction that the union negotiators
argued the need for a "catch-all" clause that would save
2 Exh. GC-2, as clarified by the testimony , erroneously shows Heck as only
an "instructor," whereas he was an assistant director carrying a full teaching
load as well. Liebensperger, who formerly taught, is shown as " supervisor"
and presently devotes fulltime to director's duties as does Frey. Mildos, also
shown on the exhibit as only "instructor," came to the school and left in the
period covered by the exhibit, starting as instructor and later assuming addi-
tional duties as guidance counsellor and assistant director before he left in
early 1970 . His bonuses of $100 in 1968 and $150 in 1969 apparently were
related to the accretion in duties and responsibilities . Heck, though an assist-
ant director as well as instructor, has been a member of the bargaining unit
of instructors
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
existent conditions of employment affecting wages and
working conditions, that he (Milot) referred in the discus-
sion to such things as sick time, coffeebreaks, free cleaning
of uniforms, and Christmas payment or bonus, and that the
parties adopted and included in the contract a "Mainte-
nance of Standards" article IV, which reads in pertinent
part:
(a) Protection of Conditions
The Employer agrees that all conditions of em-
ployment relating to wages, hours of work, and
overtime differentials shall be maintained at not less
than the highest standards in effect at the time of the
signing of this agreement and the conditions of em-
ployment shall be improved wherever specific provi-
sions for improvement are made elsewhere in this
agreement.... This provision does not give the Em-
ployer the right to impose or continue wages, hours and
working conditions less than those herein contained in
this agreement.
C. The Unilateral Discontinuance of
the Christmas Payment
Respondent's President Freedland testified that-in late
November or early December 1970, after consultation with
his lawyer, he decided not to make the Christmas payment
for 1970 to the instructors and laboratory assistants of the
Allentown school, but to continue to make the payment to
the other employees of all three schools.
President Freedland told Union Steward Milot of his
decision and asked, said Milot, that he notify the Allentown
instructors and laboratory assistants that there would be no
Christmas bonus. Freedland testified that he did not offer
to bargain about the matter . Milot said the men would be
disappointed and dissatisfied.
Steward Milot notified his fellows, many of whom told
him they were counting upon the bonus. Instructor Remaly
said he regarded the bonus as part of his pay and if the
Union did not file a grievance he intended to file on his own.
When Christmas 1970 came and went without payment
of the bonus to the bargaining unit employees, employee
Remaly filed a grievance for himself and Steward Milot
filed a grievance for all of the Allentown instructors and
laboratory assistants in January 1971. There was a formal
denial of the grievance by Respondent on February 5, 1971,
following which union representatives and Director Frey,
for the Respondent, discussed the matter. Steward Milot
contended that the "Maintenance of Standards" article of
the contract saved the employees' right to the bonus, and
Frey replied it was the school's position that the bonus had
been a gift which it could discontinue at will. Milot count-
ered that the employees had always received the bonus and
expected it, and thought it was being taken away from them
for having joined the Union.
The Union and Respondent agreed to arbitrate the
matter under the grievance procedure of the contract; but
the Union also filed an unfair labor practice charge on
March 12, 1971, alleging violations by Respondent of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
An arbitrator was selected on April 5, 1971, from a list
provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service. On April 15 the Regional Director declined to pro-
ceed further on the unfair labor practice charge, and the
Board's Office of Appeals said on May 20 that it would
await the arbitrator's award.
The arbitrator made his award, discussed below, on
July 27, 1971, and on November 30, 1971, the Board's Office
of Appeals directed the Region to issue a complaint. As
already indicated, the complaint now being tried was issued
on December 17, 1971, charging violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) but omitting any 8(a)(3) allegation.
D. The Arbitrator's Award
Arbitrator Miles E. Hoffman made his award on July
27, 1971. He ruled that Respondent would not be required
to pay a 1970 cash bonus to the instructors (and laboratory
assistants) of the Allentown school.
The arbitrator had before him the issue of whether the
Christmas payments of Respondent had become by practice
and arrangement a part of the precontract compensation of
the instructors and laboratory assistants , and if so whether
this form of compensation had been carried over and con-
tinued under the contract, as a result of the contract nego-
tiations and contract provision protecting preexisting
conditions respecting compensation.
Unfortunately the arbitrator failed to deal with the
issue presented, which is also the issue presented by the
unfair labor practice complaint. Instead, the arbitrator
avoided the issue by resting his decision on the dictum that
the Christmas bonus was inherently a gratuity from the
employer, paid "entirely at the will of the employer," that
could not have become part of the employer's contractual
obligation in the matter of wages unless it were spelled out
"in detail" as a "fringe benefit" of the contract.
E. The Renewal Contract Negotiations
The initial contract between Respondent and the Un-
ion on behalf of the instructors and laboratory assistants of
the Allentown school expired on September 30, 1971.
In its list of employee proposals for the renewal nego
-tiations, given by the Union to Respondent under date Au-
gust 11, 1971, included in the 10-point list was an item for
a $50 Christmas bonus . Negotiations were delayed in start-
ing because of the intervening wage freeze of August 15,
1971, but ultimately five meetings were held in 1971, begin-
ning with September 14. At this meeting Union Steward
Milot and Union Agent Abruzzi asked for inclusion of a
bonus in the contract to avoid, said Milot, the problem of
having it taken away again at Christmas 1971. According to
Respondent's Vice President Jack Rosenfeld, Respondent
took the position (now fortified by the arbitrator's award)
that the Christmas bonus was a gift and would not bargain
concerning it. Rosenfeld claimed that Union Agent Abruzzi
said "forget it"; however, Milot explained that he was ready
to argue it all day, but Abruzzi said it would be better to
await the outcome of the Board (unfair labor practice) pro-
ceedings rather than argue it then and tie up the negotiating
meeting all day, and suggested they "forget it for the time
being" and continue to press for the bonus before the
RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE 573
Board . I accept this explanation of what transpired at that
meeting in light of the total facts , including what was said
at a subsequent meeting . Milot testified , without contra-
diction, that at the negotiating meeting of November 18 or
24 he reiterated to Respondent's Director Frey, in a discus-
sion involving Frey, Abruzzi, and Milot, that the employees
were continuing their bonus claim in the appeal to the
NLRB, and showed Frey correspondence in that regard.
Frey replied, said Milot, that he was shocked, that he
thought the matter had been settled by the arbitrator's deci-
sion . Milot answered, he said, that the employees were con-
tending for the 1971 bonus as well , that they regarded it as
a continuation of what had been expected in 1970, under
past practice and maintenance of standards , and that they
were letting the matter go until the Board decided it. Milot
conceded that this was not said to the federal mediator in
a session with him and all parties present , and that the
Union notified the employer on December 17, 1971, of a
favorable vote of the employees on a group of items submit-
ted for their approval. The vote was taken, however , testi-
fied Milot, on the explanation to the employees that it did
not preclude going forward with the bonus issue before the
Board ; and the Union position is that it has not given up,
or given any indication of giving up, on the 1970 or 1971
bonus, that the issue was not concluded in the 1971 negotia-
tions , and that it is subject to the outcome of the present
trial.
F. Conclusions
1. Deference to the arbitration award not justified
The argument that I defer to the arbitrator 's award
rests upon Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080 (1955), and
subsequent cases , under which the Board has held that the
objective of encouraging the voluntary settlement of labor
disputes will be best served by the recognition of arbitrators'
awards, where the arbitration proceedings appear to have
been fair and regular , all parties have agreed to be bound,
and the arbitration decision is not clearly repugnant to the
purposes and policies of the Act. In the cases where def-
erence is appropriate , deference is given , and the Board's
decisional process and remedies withheld for, not only arbi-
tration awards made, but also for pending (Flintkote Co.,
149 NLRB 1561 (1964)) or available (Collyer Insulated
Wire, 192 NLRB No. 150 (August 1971 )) grievance and
arbitration proceedings capable of fairly resolving the con-
tract dispute.
However, deference to grievance and arbitration pro-
ceedings and awards is not required to be automatic , N.L.R.
B. v. Horn & Hardart Company, 439 F.2d 674 (C.A. 2, 1971),
and the Board has developed understandable exceptions to
the principle of deference , forecast in the very enunciation
of Spielberg.
Where, as here, the arbitrator has not addressed him-
self to the unfair labor practice issue it does not encourage
voluntary settlement of disputes , or effectuate policies of the
Act, to give binding effect in an unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding to the arbitration award . Raytheon Co., 140 NLRB
883 (1963).
In the present case, the arbitrator, in adopting the posi-
tion that the Christmas payments to the employees could
not be anything more than a gift or gratuity of the employer,
ignored a long line of Board and court precedent construing
the Act otherwise , and precluded himself from examining
the facts and deciding the unfair labor practice issue before
him. One illustration from among the precedents will suffice
to put the shortcomings of the artibrator 's award into per-
spective. In N.L.R.B. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 199 F.2d
713, (C.A. 2, 1952), the court said, regarding an employer's
unilateral action and refusal to bargain concerning Christ-
mas payments:
It does , of course , merely beg the question to call them
"gifts" and to argue , however persuasively , that gifts
per se are not a required subject for collective bargain-
ing. But if these gifts were so tied to the remuneration
which employees received for their work that they were
in fact a part of it , they were in reality wages and so
within the statute . This was a question of fact and if the
Board's finding to that effect was supported by sub-
stantial evidence it ends the matter . We think it was.
Where, as here, the so-called gifts have been made over
a substantial period of time and in amount have been
based on the respective wages earned by the recipients,
the Board was free to treat them as bonuses not eco-
nomically different from other special kinds of remun-
eration like pensions , retirement plans or group
insurance , to name but a few , which have been held
within the scope of the statutory bargaining require-
ment. [Citations omitted .] Indeed, in Singer Mfg. Co. v.
N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 131, certiorari denied 313
U.S. 595 [citations omitted], it was recognized that the
payment of a bonus was a subject as to which an em-
ployer was bound to bargain collectively upon request.
Since the collective bargaining agreement already
made did not contain any clause dealing with this sub-
ject matter it was one upon which the respondent was
bound to bargain when the union requested it to do so.
N.L.R.B . v. Jacobs Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 196 F.2d 680.
By this standard evolved under the Act, the arbitrator's
award was clearly deficient . It provided no findings of fact,
or judgment applied to facts , consistent with the interpreta-
tion of the Act. Indeed , the award adopted as its standard
an interpretation respecting the Christmas bonus inconsist-
ent with the interpretations of the Act . Because the
arbitrator's award is inadequate to substitute for a decision
on the merits of the unfair labor practice charged here, I will
deny the motion for deference to the arbitrator 's award.
2. Section 8(a)(5) and (1) findings
In my view, the evidence has established that over a
period of 20 years Respondent has been paying its employ-
ees a Christmas bonus in articles of value and cash. Over the
last 4 years prior to 1970, the bonus had developed into a
cash payment related to the length of service and relative
responsibilities of the classes of employees . In relation to the
employees of the Allentown school involved in this case, the
Christmas bonus was $50 each for instructors who had
served for a year , or who were part-time instructors , and for
laboratory assistants ; and $200 each for instructors who
were classified as, or performed the duties of, assistant di-
rector . The employees had come to expect and rely upon the
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bonus payments as part of their compensation, and, in view
of the regularity and the pattern evolved, had the right to
expect the continuation of the bonus as part of their wages.
In the 1970 negotiations for the initial collective-bar-
gaining contract of the instructors and laboratory assistants
of the Allentown school, while the Christmas bonus was not
the subject of specific and separate negotiations, it was not-
ed to be among the matters for which the Union asked for
and received a general catchall clause in the contract. That
clause of the contract, entitled "Maintenance of Stand-
ards," preserves to the employees all conditions of employ-
ment relating to wages, hours, and overtime differentials, at
not less than the highest standards in effect at the time of
the signing of the contract. The Christmas bonus, as an
element of wages, was preserved by the "Maintenance of
Standards" clause.
It follows, therefore, that Respondent was under a stat-
utory duty to bargain about its decision to discontinue, and
its discontinuance of, paying the Christmas bonus. When,
in December 1970, Respondent unilaterally and without
bargaining decided to discontinue and discontinued the
payment of the Christmas 1970 bonus to the employees in
the two bargaining units of the Allentown school employ-
ees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Gravenslund Operating Company, 168 NLRB 513 (1967).3
Respondent has continued the violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain about, and
not paying, the Christmas 1971 bonus.
In the circumstances, the employees are entitled to an
order that Respondent make them whole for the monetary
loss suffered as a result of the unlawful withholding of the
Christmas bonus for 1970 and 1971. See Gravenslund Oper-
ating Co., supra, 168 NLRB 513, 514-515.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By unilaterally, and without bargaining, deciding to
discontinue, and discontinuing, the payment of the Christ-
mas bonus for 1970 preserved by contract to the two units
of employees comprising the instructors and laboratory as-
sistants, respectively, of the Allentown school, represented
by the Union for purposes of collective bargaining, Respon-
dent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent
continued the violation by refusing to bargain concerning,
and not paying, the Christmas bonus for 1971.
2. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that Respondent
1. Cease and desist from its unfair labor practices,
2. Make the employees whole for the monetary loss
suffered by them, as a result of the unlawful withholding of
the Christmas bonus for 1970 and 1971, the amount in each
case to be determined as nearly as can be ascertained by the
formula described in the Section 8(a)(5) and (1) findings,
3 The violation existed even though the action may not have been taken
in bad faith , N L.R B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 737, 747 (1962)
with interest at six percent per annum.
3. Post the notices provided for herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:
ORDER4
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors and assigns
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union
with respect to a Christmas bonus, or any other term or
condition of employment, by unilaterally discontinuing or
changing bonus payments, or unilaterally changing any
term or condition of employment, of the instructors and
laboratory assistants of the Allentown school in their appro-
priate bargaining units, in derogation of the rights of the
Union or any other labor organization which the employees
may select as their exclusive bargaining representative.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the
rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Pay to each of its instructors and laboratory assist-
ants of the Allentown school in the appropriate bargaining
units the amounts that were due each for the 1970 and 1971
Christmas bonus, computed in the manner set forth in the
section of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post in its school in Allentown, Pennsylvania, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked, "Appendix ." Immediate-
ly upon receipt of copies of said notice, on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, the Respondent shall cause the copies
to be signed by one of its authorized representatives and
posted, the posted copies to be maintained for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith .6
4In 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, recommendations, and Order herein shall, as provided in Sec-
tion 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.
5 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall 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."
6 In the event that the recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify
the Regional Director of Region 4, in writing, within twenty days from the
date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE 575
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
due to the instructors and laboratory assistants of the
Allentown school in the appropriate bargaining units,
with interest at six percent per annum.
RADIO TELEVISION TECHNICAL SCHOOL,
INC., tea RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE
(Employer)
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Lo-
cal 773, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(the Union), by unilaterally discontinuing or changing
the Christmas bonus, or unilaterally changing any oth-
er term or condition of employment, of the instructors
and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school in
their appropriate bargaining units, in derogation of the
rights of the Union.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct
interfering with your rights as employees guaranteed
under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL pay the 1970 and 1971 Christmas bonus
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 direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building,
Walnut & Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107, Telephone 215-597-7601.