South Florida Taxi Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SOUTH FLORIDA TAXI ASSOCIATION
South Florida Taxi Association and Its Member Employ-
ers: AAA Auto Leasing , Inc. d/b/a White Cab; Friendly
Checker Cab, Inc.; and Checker Cab of North Dade,
Inc. and Taxi Drivers Union , Brotherhood of Railway-
Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers , Express
& Station Employees , AFL-CIO
Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 390 , affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (South Florida Taxi Association and its Mem-
ber Employers : AAA Auto Leasing , Inc. d/b/a White
Cab; Friendly Checker Cab, Inc.; and Checker Cab
of North Dade , Inc.) and Taxi Drivers Union , Brother-
hood of Railway-Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight
Handlers, Express & Station Employees , AFL-CIO.
Cases 12-CA-4342-2 and 12-CB-1012
June 3, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND BROWN
On November 25, 1969, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchan-
an issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent AAA Auto Leasing, Inc., d/
b/a White Cab had engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. He further found that Respondent White Cab
together with the other Respondents in Cases
12-CA-4342-2 and 12-CB-1012 had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended dismissal of those allegations. There-
after, the General Counsel and Respondent White Cab
filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and finds merit in the exceptions of Respondent
White Cab.
The Trial Examiner found that the Board had jurisdic-
tion over the three Respondent companies although each
company, if considered separately, would not meet the
Board's $500,000 standard for retail enterprises. He
reached this result by concluding that the three compa-
nies had formed a true multiemployer bargaining associa-
tion which for jurisdictional purposes could be consid-
ered a single employer.' Accordingly, he combined their
volumes of business to satisfy the jurisdictional standard.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we do not agree that
' Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, Dover Tavern Owners'
Association, 164 NLRB 933
1049
the three companies constitute a viable multiemployer
bargaining group.
In assessing the, status of an association as a multiem-
ployer bargaining group, the Board examines its organic
agreement as well as the conduct of its members to
determine whether the members have demonstrated an
unequivocal intention to be bound in their collective
bargaining by group rather than by individual action.2
Respondent White Cab contends that the record does
not substantiate the Trial Examiner's finding that the
members of the Association evidenced such an unequivo-
cal intent to be bound. We agree.
The material facts of this case, which for the most
part are undisputed, are as follows: The three Respond-
ent companies operate taxicabs in and around Miami,
Florida. Respondent Friendly Checker Cab, Inc., has
had a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent
Teamsters Local 390 since 1966; a new contract was
executed in June 1969. In July 1968, the three companies
agreed to form the Respondent Association, South Flori-
da Taxi Association, to increase their purchasing power
and for collective-bargaining purposes.3 On July 25,
1968, a bank account was opened in the name of the
Association which listed Harold Kieley (the treasurer
of Friendly Checker) as president of the Association,
Harold Potter (president of White Cab) as secretary,
and Peter Sclafani (treasurer of Checker Cab) as treasur-
er.
On September 16, 1968, the three companies and
the Association entered into a recognition agreement
with the Respondent Teamsters in a unit covering the
employees of all three companies. Thereafter, on Octo-
ber 4, following a strike by some of White Cab's employ-
ees, the Association filed an unfair labor practice charge
against the Charging Party herein.4 On October 24, 1968,
the Association closed its bank account. There has never
been any collective bargaining resulting from the recogni-
tion agreement and there apparently is no prospect for
multiemployer bargaining in the future since Potter,
the president of White Cab, testified that the Association
no longer existed.
Although the Trial Examiner conceded that there was
no long-term relationship between the parties, he found
that the members had evidenced their intent to be bound
by group action by the very terms of the recognition
agreement. While it is true that the agreement does
authorize the Association to bargain collectively for
its members, it contains no provision which specifies
that the members are to be bound by any contract
negotiated by the Association.' Moreover, there has
never been any group bargaining pursuant to the recogni-
tion agreement from which the Board might infer an
Y Van Eerden Company, 154 NLRB 496, The Kroger Co , 148 NLRB
569
8 The Trial Examiner found that the Association never prepared
formal articles of association
I This charge was withdrawn on October 8, 1968, before the Board
had occasion to decide whether it would assert jurisdiction over the
Association
' See Council of Bagel and Bialy Bakeries, etc , 175 NLRB No
148, Oregon Labor-Management Relations Board, 136 NLRB 1207
182 NLRB No. 146
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intent to be bound on the part of the individual members
The only collective-bargaining history has been on an
individual basis, in fact, Friendly Checker negotiated
a separate contract with the Respondent Teamsters
subsequent to its execution of the recognition agreement
Under these circumstances, we find that the limited
actions of the Association members, set forth above,
do not warrant the conclusion that a true multiemployer
group had been established Moreover, as the record
reveals that the parties have never bargained on a group
basis, as their conduct indicates that they have no inten-
tion of engaging in multiemployer bargaining in the
future, and as they have never unequivocally agreed
to be bound in their collective bargaining by group
action, we can find no justification for asserting jurisdic-
tion on a multiemployer basis Therefore, as each
Respondent Company's gross volume of business, con-
sidered alone, does not meet the Board's jurisdictional
standard for retail enterprises , we shall dismiss the
complaint in its entirety
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the complaint against Respond-
ents, South Florida Taxi Association, AAA Auto Leas-
ing, Inc d/b/a White Cab, Friendly Checker Cab, Inc ,
Checker Cab of North Dade, Inc , and Freight Drivers,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 390, affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chau-
ffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety
MEMBER BROWN , concurring
I concur in the result reached by my colleagues that
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
BUCHANAN, Trial Examiner The consolidated com-
plaint herein (issued April 29, 1969, charges filed October
3, 1968) alleges that the Respondent Association and
Companies have violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat
519, by entering into, maintaining , and effectuating a
recognition agreement with Local 390 when the latter
had not been designated by an uncoerced majority as
the bargaining representative of their employees, and
by assisting and supporting in various ways in connection
with the signing of authorization cards for Local 390,
and that Local 390 has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act by entering into the recognition agreement
The answers, as amended by stipulations or admissions
at the trial, put in issue the existence of the Association,
deny supervisory status of dispatchers, and further deny
the allegations of violation
The case was tried before me at Miami, Florida,
on June 26, 27, and 30, 1969 At the conclusion of
the trial, counsel were heard in detailed and helpful
oral argument
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR) AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I THE ASSOCIATION, THE COMPANIES' BUSINESS, AND
THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
A recognition agreement was entered into on Septem-
ber 16, 1968 (it recites a September 15 date), "between
South Florida Taxi Association, representing the Checker
Cab of North Dade, Inc , Friendly Checker Cab, Inc ,
and AAA Auto Leasing, Inc , d/b/a White Cab, herein-
after jointly referred to as the `Employer' or the 'Associ-
ation ,' and Teamsters Local Union No 390 affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chau-
ffeurs and Warehousemen of America, hereinafter
referred to as the `Union ' " The body of the recognition
agreement reads as follows
WHEREAS, the Union has demonstrated to the
Employer and to the Association that it represents
a majority of the employees now employed by
the Employers in the unit described below
Included All full-time and regular part-time taxi-
cab drivers , all lessee-taxicab drivers, owners,
garage men and mechanics
Excluded All other employees, office clerical
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in
the National Labor Relations Act
Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the prom-
ises and premises set forth herein , the said parties
hereby agree as follows
The Association and the Employers whom it
represents agree to recognize the Union as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative and
bargaining agent for the employees in the unit
described above, and hereby agree to enter into
collective bargaining negotiations for the purpose
of arriving at, and executing , a labor agreement
with the Union and the Association covering the
above described unit employees
It appears further that on July 25, 1968, a bank
account was opened in the name of the Association,
that $150 was deposited therein, $50 coming from Sclafa-
ni of Checker of North Dade, $50 from Potter of White
Cab, and $50 from Kieley of Friendly Checker, that
the $150 was withdrawn on October 24 by Kieley and
Potter by check payable to Sclafani, and that in the
account Kieley was listed as president of the Association,
Potter as secretary, and Sclafani as treasurer, and further
that there was no activity in the account between July
25 and October 24
The Respondents rely principally on the Board's recent
decision in Council of Bagel and Bialy Bakeries,' where
the Board naturally relying on "the facts of this case"
and ' these circumstances," concluded that no multiem-
ployer unit there existed It was in that case pointed
1 175 NLRB No 148
SOUTH FLORIDA TAXI ASSOCIATION
out that each employer had dealt separately with the
unions in the case , as had the unions with each employer
In this connection the Board concluded as follows
"It appears , rather , that the Association was formed
merely for the sake of convenience in bargaining, and
that it cannot be concluded that the members of the
group indicated an unequivocal intention to be bound
in collective-bargaining by group rather than individual
action " The Board ' s decision in the Bagel case repre-
sents no departure from the law as previously declared
in such cases as Kroeter2 and Kroger 3 The Board in
those and other cases has declared the test to be an
unequivocal intent to be bound by group action
We cannot in the instant case point to a long-term
relationship But establishment of a closely knit single
entity is clearly indicated by the very terms of the
recognition agreement That agreement entered into in
September , brief as it is, not only recites that the Associa-
tion represents the three companies , but it expressly
declares the intent to negotiate and execute a labor
agreement with "the Union and the Association cover-
ing" the single unit of all employees of the three compa-
nies That is a clear and unequivocal declaration of
intent to be bound as a group This finding is supported
by a statement earlier submitted by Potter which declares
one of the purposes of the Association to be collective
bargaining Since reference to the Association and its
purpose was in connection with and limited to the three
companies , it could not refer to bargaining between
the companies separately and a union, the collective
aspect of bargaining embraced all three
Admittedly Potter , Sclafani, and Kieley discussed
labor problems in connection with the Association To
the extent that we are concerned with the Companies'
joint procedure and recognition of the Association, they
recognized its existence until they were advised to the
contrary , we similarly recognize it even if Kieley, who
was relied on to have formal articles of association
filed, did not see to such administrative procedure What-
ever modification or complication might ensue since
Friendly already had a contract with 390, that contract
neither prevented nor obliterated the action now taken
I would not magnify the suggestion of joint action by
the presence , noted below , of both Potter and Kieley
at a meeting of White Cab drivers at the home of
one of the drivers (At this point we can distinguish
between an alliance or association to act jointly, which
is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction , and what we
shall note below, the failure to effectuate and maintain
a collective -bargaining agreement to the point of viola-
tion We are at the monent concerned with joint action
regardless of whether it was violative )
Despite the denials by the Companies and Local 390
and the claim that it did not engage in any other activity,4
the evidence indicates that the three companies were
2 Carpenters Local 1839 (Gilbert Kroeter dlbla Kroeter Construction
Company) 160 NLRB 1 2
The Kroger Co 148 NLRB 569 573-574
Counsel for the Respondent Companies in this case filed a CB
charge with the Board on October 4 1963 on behalf of the Association
Cf Lairen s Incorporated dlbla Hilaire s Encore 173 NLRB No 162
1051
acting jointly and that the Association did exist and
was recognized by the three companies and by Local
390 as the sole and authorized representative of the
companies , I so find and conclude The proof which
sufficiently indicates service of process and thus jurisdic-
tion over the Association in this proceeding need not
be detailed here in view of the finding below with
respect to the Association
It was stipulated that during the 12-month period
immediately preceding October 31, 1968, each of the
companies listed below , Florida corporations , purchased
automobiles , parts , and equipment valued at more than
$10,000 directly from sources located outside the State
of Florida , and caused same to be transported to it
at its Florida place of business , and, further , that in
the same period of time each of said companies had
a gross volume of business equal to the amount opposite
its respective name
FRIENDLY CHECKER CAB INC $350,000
CHECKER CAB OF NORTH DADE, INC
$140,000
AAA AUTO LEASING, INC d/b/a WHITE CAB
CO $185,000
On the basis of the finding above with respect to the
Association 's existence and the three companies' mem-
bership therein, I combine their volume of business
and find and conclude that they are engaged in business
within the meaning of the Act
It was agreed at the trial that there is no issue concern-
ing Taxi Drivers Union , and I find and conclude that
it is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act At the trial counsel for the Respondent companies
maintained the denial in his answer that Local 390
is a labor organization (The transcript erroneously attrib-
utes to him the statement , "No, we don't deny that "
The transcript is hereby corrected to show that that
statement was made by counsel for Local 390 It was
the latter also, and not the General Counsel , who argued
at the bottom of page 159 and the top of page 160
of the transcript that cab dispatchers have in many
cases been found to be in the unit The transcript
is thus corrected ) Local 390 admitted in its answer
and at the trial that it is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act Aside from the Board ' s finding
in the Toppino case " that Local 390 is a labor organiza-
tion, we recall it was recognized by the three companies
and the Association as the union with which they were
to enter into a collective -bargaining agreement I find
and conclude that Local 390 is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act
iI THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Several violations are attributed to a White Cab dis-
patcher, Morra But whether or not Morra was a supervi-
sor within the meaning of the Act is in issue The
testimony concerning him specifically and White Cab
dispatchers generally indicates that Morra's discretion
Charley Toppino and Sons Inc 138 NLRB 1247
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is circumscribed to the point that it can be and is
exercised within very narrow limits and indeed routinely
Given sufficiently detailed instructions in advance as
input, he directs the drivers as might a computer Thus
proximity dictates which of several drivers is directed
to a call, with consideration' given to the amount of
work done by each driver When a passenger is unruly
or otherwise presents a problem, the driver must call
the dispatcher who, on being told the circumstances,
tries to call a policeman The driver cannot himself
call the police since his radio communication is limited
to the office
Rules to cover emergencies are clear and definite,
with recourse in unusual situations to Potter or Clancy
who is White Cab's manager and admittedly a supervisor
On the few occasions when the dispatcher calls a driver
in as unfit for service, subject to review and decision
by Potter, the driver's earnings are diminished because
of the time (not more than a few hours in any event)
lost prior to Potter's decision in this small and virtually
personal operation But even in such a case, the element
of discretion which the dispatcher exercises appears
to be so narrow that there is no evidence that there
has ever been occasion to exercise it improperly or
for Potter to reverse or criticize the dispatcher's emer-
gency decisions Gibbs, a part-time dispatcher boastful
in expression and manner, referred to himself as "boss"
but his nonconclusionary description of a dispatcher's
duties was quite consistent with the other testimony
received I find and conclude that Morra is not a supervi-
sor within the meaning of the Act or an agent for
whose acts White Cab is responsible
No proof was received in support of separate allega-
tions of violation by representatives of Checker of North
Dade, none are charged to Friendly The remaining
allegations (i e , other than those based on the recognition
agreement itself) cite violations by White Cab Driver
Fowler testified that, when he was hired about the
middle of September 1968, Potter handed him a Team-
sters application card, that he remarked, "I didn't know
you was in the Union", that Potter's reply was, "You
are now, as soon as you can sign this card Now,
you will be in the Teamsters Union", and that he
thereupon signed the card and returned it to Potter
Driver Johnson testified that, also in the middle of
September, Potter gave Teamsters cards to him and
driver Moser and asked them to sign, that they did
sign and returned the cards to Potter The request is
clear whether or not Potter in haec verba asked the
drivers to sign
A few days later, with notices posted concerning
a Teamsters meeting to be held, Potter spoke to Johnson
about it, either telling him not to forget or asking whether
he was going Whether a direction to attend or an
inquiry, the form of Potter's remarks is of no great
moment (as attested to by Johnson's inability to recall
which it was) It constituted improper encouragement
to attend, and support of the Teamsters Although not'
alleged, this latter item was litigated as Potter denied
' Here the element of discretion intrudes but it is narrowly limited
that he gave cards or had any conversation with Johnson
or Moser Potter's denials are not to be relied on
He was evasive in his answers, and argumentative to
an extreme He impressed me as seeking to support
his position at the expense of straightforward and truthful
answers I find and conclude that he violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by questioning concerning
or urging attendance at a union meeting, and by soliciting
signatures on union cards
On invitation, Potter and Kieley attended a meeting
in September at driver Gnss' home, some 10 or 12
drivers being present (Reference throughout is to White
Cab's drivers ) Griss explained that he called the meeting
so that the drivers' claim for an increase could be
presented, and also to see what could be done about
removing the Taxi Drivers picket line While Gnss was
a reluctant witness and of doubtful credibility, there
is no basis for going beyond the testimony received
concerning events at this meeting Potter testified that,
while he was there, he did not "mention union," nor
did anyone to him If any unlawful act was committed
by Potter or Kieley at Griss' home or was authorized
or approved by them, there is no evidence of it
Considerable testimony was received concerning a
sign or signs posted in the dispatcher's small office,
where drivers attend at the beginning and end of their
shifts The signs referred to were posted about the
middle of September and gave notice of a meeting
of Local 390, indicating the time and place and that
dinner would be served Potter's statement that he made
up his mind that he was "just going to see what hap
pened," and permitted the signs to remain suggest that
he would otherwise have removed them But I credit
his uncontradicted testimony that drivers were not
restricted in putting up signs, which referred to many
things, that signs are "all over the walls the walls
are plastered with all sorts of things " The drivers
were given free rein (if we overlook the anachronism
or mixed metaphor) to post signs, and there is no evi-
dence of refusal to extend similar privileges to other
unions I find and conclude that there was no violation
in this connection
We can consider jointly the allegation that the Associa-
tion and the three companies violated the Act by entering
into a recognition agreement with Local 390 about Sep-
tember 15, when the Union was not the designated
majority representative, and the separate allegation of
violation by entering into and since that date maintaining
and otherwise giving effect to the recognition agreement
Long ago, when the law was anything but settled, I
recognized that an employer and a union violated the
Act by entering into and enforcing a collective-bargaining
agreement when the union had not been designated
by a majority of the employees in the unit "The employer
' If this be unclear on review I am saying specifically and not
imphedly that I do not believe Potter and do not credit his denials
I regret the apparent necessity to employ such bald and unkind language
when less blunt and harsh terms should be quite understandable on
review and to any interested reader
h New York State Employers Association Inc 93 NLRB 127 For
a more recent among the legion of cases to the same effect see
SOUTH FLORIDA TAXI ASSOCIATION 1053
and union actively enforcing a contract, the effect would
be or would tend to be synergistic, and the violations
all too evident. But the facts are different here.
If we would hazard a guess at the number of employees
of these three companies (we know only that White
Cab had 23 to 28), the interference and unlawful support
already found may have been minimal for any possible
taint of the recognition agreement. But wholly aside
from the status of the agreement, there is no evidence
that employees were aware of it nor conceivably that
it interfered with any employees, beyond Potter's admis-
sion that, on the day after it was signed, he told his
employees (how many, we do not know; they did not
testify to this) that he had signed the recognition agree-
ment. Although the agreement was not thereafter main-
tained, such a statement to employees would constitute
interference-if there were no lawful majority. But
unless the agreement was in fact maintained or enforced,
it will add little if anything to the remedy to explore
the question of uncoerced majority for possible violation
in Potter's statement, itself not alleged as a violation.
Thus, aside from the question of majority, mere execu-
tion of the recognition agreement need not be found
to be violative in the absence of evidence whether
and to what extent knowledge of it and thus interference
was carried over to any other employees of White
Cab. Nor is there basis for assuming that knowledge
of existence of the recognition agreement was transmit-
ted to employees of Friendly or Checker of North
Dade."
As for maintenance and enforcement, there was not
any with respect to the recognition agreement. It neither
interfered with employees nor supported Local 390:
It was never implemented or otherwise given effect
peyond the acts already found violative. While execution
of the agreement by the signatories suffices to warrant
assumption of jurisdiction by the Board, the agreement
at no time tended to interfere with employees' concerted
activities or to support Local 390. We have here at
most an inchoate violation, an agreement to agree which,
if implemented, would be in violation of the Act were
it found that there was no majority or, if there was,
that it was tainted by the violations found. We cannot
under the circumstances hold any of the signatories
liable except White Cab for Potter's violations as found.
There is no evidence that any Respondent other than
White Cab tended to interfere with or restrain employees
before or after the agreement was executed. The other
Respondents' actual if limited entry into a joint venture
did not make them liable for Potter's acts vis-a-vis
his own employees.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the
case, I recommend that AAA Auto Leasing, Inc. d/
b/a White Cab, North Miami, Florida, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Questioning employees concerning, or urging their
attendance at, union meetings.
(b) Soliciting employees' signatures on union cards.
(c) Assisting or supporting Freight Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 390, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chau-
ffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any
other labor organization, by unlawfully encouraging or
requiring employees of AAA Auto Leasing, Inc. d/
b/a White Cab to join any labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business in North Miami,
Florida, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix.""' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 12, shall be posted
by the Company, after being duly signed by its represent-
ative, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
taiped by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
snicftous places, including all places where notices to
its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Company to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.''
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violation by South Florida
Taxi Association, Friendly Checker Cab, Inc., Checker
Cab of North Dade, Inc., and Freight Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 390, affiliated
Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, 177 NLRB No 13
" The amount of business indicated above in connection with the
question of jurisdiction suggests that Friendly is much larger than
White Cab Cases which relate to a coerced majority are irrelevant
until it be shown that, as alleged, there was here no uncoerced majority
Whether there was an uncoerced majority would appear to depend
on the number of employees in the overall unit , the number of cards
signed for 390, and the extent and inferred effect of any interference.
While questions were raised in this connection, they were not answered
at the Trial Were the issue important here for possible effect on
an existing relationship and for purposes of remedy, I should nevertheless
agree that it would be "unjust and inequitable" (American Federation
of Musicians (Penza Theatrical Agency, Inc.), 177 NLRB No 95) to
seek evidence now There is no dispute concerning the law with respect
to recognition of a minority union; but neither is there proof or adequate
challenge on the factual allegation of absence of an uncoerced or
unaffected majority
"' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Sec 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
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
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 12, in writing, within 10 days from the date of
this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chau-
ffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce
employees by questioning them concerning , or urg-
ing attendance at, union meetings , or by soliciting
signatures on union cards
WE WILL NOT unlawfully assist or support Freight
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No 390 , affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization,
by unlawfully encouraging or requiring employees
of AAA Auto Leasing , Inc d/b/a White Cab to
join any labor organization
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Freight
Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No 390 , affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of
Freight Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No 390, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, or any other labor organization
AAA AUTO LEASING,
INC D/B/A WHITE CAB
(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,
Room 826 , Federal Office Building , 51 SW First Avenue,
Miami , Florida 33130, Telephone 305-350-5391
* U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1971 0 440 096