St. Louis Labor Health Instltute

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 180 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Louis Labor Health Institute and Cynthia
Stutsman
Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Cynthia Stutsman. Cases 14-CA-9461 and 14-
CB-3292
June 14, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND MURPHY
On November 23, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Herbert Silberman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and
Respondents, herein called Institute and Union, filed
exceptions 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.'
ORDER 2
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that:
A. The Respondent, St. Louis Labor Health
Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
Insert the following as paragraphs 2(e) and 2(f) and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(e) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in paragraph A, 2(d), above,
as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional
Director, copies of Respondent Union's attached
notice marked 'Appendix B.'
"(f) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14
signed copies of the attached notice marked 'Appen-
dix A' for posting by Respondent Teamsters Local
Union No. 688, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, at its business offices
and meeting hall, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Copies of said
230 NLRB No. I
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being signed by an authorized
representative of the Company, shall be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for posting."
B. The Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No.
688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, as so modified:
Substitute the following paragraphs for paragraph
2(d) and reletter present 2(e) as 2(f):
"(d) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in paragraph B, 2(c), above, as
soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director,
copies of Respondent Employer's attached notice
marked 'Appendix A.'
"(e) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14
signed copies of the attached notice marked 'Appen-
dix B' for the posting by Respondent St. Louis Labor
Health Institute, at its premises in St. Louis,
Missouri, in places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Copies of the notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 14,
after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent Union, shall be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for posting."
I We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that under the
circumstances here the Union is incompetent to act as the collective-
bargaining representative of the Institute's employees. However, we do not
adopt that portion of the Remedy section in which the Administrative Law
Judge describes the corrective action Respondents could take which would
qualify the Union to represent the Institute's employees. We prefer not to
rule on this issue prematurely, but, rather, shall defer the question to a time
when and if a petition for certification of representative may be filed with
the Board.
However, nothing herein shall be construed to require the Institute to
vary or abandon any wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive feature of
its relations with its employees which the Institute has established pursuant
to any contract, agreement, or understanding, or to prejudice the assertion
by the employees of any rights acquired by them thereunder.
2 The Board customarily remedies 8(aX3) violations with a broad order
using the injunctive language "in any other manner." However, we consider
a narrow order appropriate here, since unusual or technical 8(bXI)(1A) and
8(aX3) violations are involved.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: A
charge having been filed in Case 14-CA-9461 on July 7,
1976, against St. Louis Labor Health Institute,' herein
called the Institute, and a charge having been filed on the
same day against Teamsters Local Union No. 688,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Union, an order consolidating the
separate cases and a complaint therein were issued on
August 6, 1976. The complaint, as amended at the hearing,
The name of Respondent Employer appears in the caption in
accordance with the amendment of the complaint granted at the hearing.
180
ST. LOUIS LABOR HEALTH INSTITUTE
alleges that the Institute has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(aXl), (2), and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and the Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
A hearing in these proceedings was held on September
13, 1976, in St. Louis, Missouri. Pursuant to permission
granted the parties at the hearing, briefs were filed with the
Administrative Law Judge by counsel for General Counsel
and for Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE INSTITUTE
The Institute, a not-for-profit Missouri corporation,
provides direct medical services to individuals, largely to
members of the Union under group medical insurance
plans provided in collective-bargaining agreements be-
tween the Union and various business organizations.
During the calendar year 1975 the Institute's gross
revenue was in excess of $500,000 and its purchases of
supplies and equipment, which were shipped to its facility
in St. Louis, Missouri, through channels of interstate
commerce from locations outside the State of Missouri,
were in excess of $50,000. Respondents admit, and I find,
that the Institute is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7).2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The Institute recognizes the Union as the representative
of its business office employees and its dental assistants.
These two employee units have been covered by separate,
but similar, collective-bargaining agreements, the most
recent of which were for a term of 3 years from June 1,
1973, to May 31, 1976, and have been extended pending
the negotiation of succeeding agreements. The contracts as
written and extended contain union-security and checkoff
clauses. The single issue in this case is whether the
relationship between the Union and the Institute is such as
to disqualify the Union from acting as the statutory
representative of the Institute's employees.
The complaint alleges that the Institute and the Union
are "affiliated business enterprises and alter egos of each
other with common officers, ownership, directors and
operators which officers and directors formulate and
administer a common labor policy for Respondent Em-
ployer and Union." At the hearing General Counsel was
requested in his brief to define the term alter ego and to
2 The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Union also is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
explain its relationship to the issues in this case. For a
definition, General Counsel quotes from Parklate Hosiery
Co., Inc. and Mervyn Roberts d/b/a Parklane Hosiery, 203
NLRB 597, 614 (1973):
Some courts have found the requisite degree of control
present, however, upon the showing that the financial
operations, policy, and general business practice of the
claimed subordinate instrumentality are so completely
dominated that, with respect to the particular transaction
under attack, the business entity in question has no
separate mind, will, or existence of its own.
He argues that in the present case the Institute "is solely
dependent on revenue derived ultimately from labor
contracts negotiated by [the Union]. Its officers are all top
officials of [the Union]" and the Union's "influence and
potential for control of [the Institute] is so great that [the
Institute] may be treated as the alter ego of [the Union]. Of
course, the finding of an 8(aX2 ) violation does not require
the finding of alter ego status. An 8(a)2) violation can be
sustained on significantly less of an interrelationship than
required for a showing of an alter ego." I disagree that the
facts adverted to by General Counsel establish that the two
organizations are alter egos.
Respondents argue that the "gravamen of General
Counsel's Complaint revolves around the 'alter ego' theory
. . . and they] would be severely prejudiced in this case by
any finding of violations on any basis other than the 'alter
ego' theory ... because they had absolutely no notice that
General Counsel was advancing any other theory or
relying on any other facts other than those alleged .... "I
find no merit to this argument. The assertion of the alter
ego relationship appears in paragraph 4 of the complaint
and is a conclusionary statement. The facts upon which the
alleged unfair labor practices are based are set forth in
paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the complaint and the use of
the term "alter ego" in paragraph 7 is descriptive only.
Furthermore, at the hearing General Counsel clearly stated
that establishing an alter ego relationship was not essential
to the theory of his case and none of the cases cited by
General Counsel in support of his position rely on an alter
ego theory. Contrary to Respondents, I find that they are
not prejudiced by a decision which does not rely on the
existence of an alter ego relationship in determining that
the alleged unfair labor practices have been proved.
The significant issue in this case, as stated by General
Counsel in his brief, is whether the Union has "sufficient
involvement in the management and control of [the
Institute] to prevent [the Union] from representing or
attempting to represent employees of the [Institute)."
Respondents' defense is that regardless of the fact that the
same individuals occupy principal offices in both organiza-
tions, the union officials as officers of the Institute "play
very little part in the day to day operations of [the
Institute]," and have not used their positions to the
prejudice of the bargaining unit employees and, therefore,
there is no basis for disqualifying the Union as the
representative of employees of the Institute.
181
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Evidence
Only two witnesses testified at the hearing, Paul Akers
and Otto Sanders, a union business agent.
Akers confirmed the allegations of the complaint
regarding the individuals who hold offices in both
organizations. Ronald Gamache is president of the Insti-
tute and secretary-treasurer and chief executive officer of
the Union; Paul Akers is secretary-treasurer of the Institute
and president of the Union; and Levi Sanford is vice
president of the Institute and a business agent of the
Union. The general supervision of all the affairs of the
Institute is vested in a seven-member board of trustees.
Three of the trustees are Ronald Gamache, Paul Akers,
and Levi Sanford. The other four are: Leo Grams, a retired
member of the Union; Elmer Goebel, a former employer of
members of the Union who is now retired; and Joe
Promaroli and Dallas Crawford, rank-and-file union
members. In addition, there are three alternate members of
the board of trustees who are: Thomas Gaukel, a former
employer of members of the Union; Sam Williams, a
retired union member; and Ralph Evans, a labor relations
consultant for an employer. Norman Armbruster is the
attorney for both the Institute and the Union.
The officers and trustees of the Institute spend little time
in the management of its affairs. Dr. Edward J. Berger,
medical director, Peter C. Sharamitaro, who holds the title
of assistant to president, and Milton J. Robbers, an
accountant, are responsible for the day-to-day operations
of the Institute.
According to Akers the Institute, which is a not-for-
profit corporation, is the "medical arm" which services the
medical and hospitalization benefits provided for members
of the Union pursuant to the terms of collective-bargaining
agreements.3 Very few other persons receive services from
the Institute. The Institute's revenue is derived from
payments made by contracting employers and from patient
charges. The Union makes no payments to the Institute
except for premium payments on behalf of its employees
who are covered by appropriate medical plans.
The Institute and the Union occupy space in the same
building complex.
The business office employees and the dental assistants
of the Institute have been covered by collective-bargaining
agreements with the Union which contain union-security
and checkoff clauses. The most recent contracts were for
the term from June 1, 1973, to May 31, 1976, and have
been extended by oral agreement until the negotiation of
succeeding contracts shall be concluded.
Otto Sanders, business agent of the Union, is the
individual who acts for the employees of the Institute
3 Not all agreements negotiated by the Union provide for the utilization
of the services of the Institute.
4 Akers testified that in the 2 years he has been an officer of the Institute
there have been no grievances that have gone beyond the first step of the
grievance procedure. Thus, he was unable to testify whether the Institute's
representative on the adjustment board (a later step in the grievance
procedure) at any time has been a union official.
s See Medical Foundation of Bellaire, 193 NLRB 62 (1971), and cases
there cited, particularly in fn. 19.
6 See Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc., 118 NLRB 174,
187 (1957).
7 Centerville Clinics, Incorporated 181 NLRB 135 (1970); H. P. Hood &
covered by the collective-bargaining agreements. 4 During
the current negotiations Sanders represented the Union,
while Paul Akers represented the Institute.
C. Conclusions
The issue in this case is whether the relationship between
the Union and the Institute is such as to disqualify the
Union from acting as the statutory collective-bargaining
representative of employees of the Institute. What consti-
tutes such disqualification has been considered by the
Board in a variety of situations.5 Without attempting to
iterate an all-encompassing principle, it is sufficient for the
purposes of the instant decision to note that the Board will
find that a union is not qualified to act as a collective-
bargaining representative if it is unable to approach
negotiations with the single-minded purpose of protecting
and advocating the interests of the employees who have
selected it as their bargaining representative or if, in effect,
the same people sit on both sides of the bargaining table.
The evidence is that Paul Akers, who is president of the
Union, has been the principal negotiator for the Institute in
bargaining with the Union with respect to a contract to
replace the agreement that expired on May 31, 1976. For
this reason I find that the allegations of the complaint have
been sustained.6
In support of his position General Counsel cites cases
which state that a union is disqualified to represent
employees of an employer if there exists a potential for a
conflict of interest.7 Respondents, on the other hand, cite
more recent cases which they contend stand for the
proposition that the Board no longer considers the
governing criterion to be the "potential" possibility that the
representation of employees will be tainted by an alleged
conflict in interest, but that a union will be disqualified
only where in fact the representation of employees has
been infected by a conflict of interest.8 The cases cited by
Respondents suggest that the Board's attitude may be
changing. However, it is unnecessary for me to determine
that question. Where, as in this case, an important union
official, such as Paul Akers, represents an employer in
collective-bargaining negotiations with his union a disqua-
lifying conflict of interests exists.9
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Institute and of the Union, set forth
in section 11I, above, occurring in connection with the
Institute's operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
Sons, Inc., 182 NLRB 194, 195 (1970); United Mine Workers of America
Welfare and Retirement Fund, 192 NLRB 1022 (1971); Medical Foundation of
Bellaire, supra
8 Anchorage Community Hospital, Inc., 225 NLRB 575 (1976); Gerace
Construction, Inc. and Helger Construction Company, Inc., 193 NLRB 645
(1971).
9 Loyalty to the interests of the Institute and the Union necessarily come
into conflict when, as president of the Union, Akers represents the Institute
in collective-bargaining negotiations. Furthermore, the union negotiator,
Otto Sanders, when negotiating with the president of the Union, is subject to
subtle pressures which would tend to interfere with his obligation to
promote and protect the interests of the employees he is representing.
182
ST. LOUIS LABOR HEALTH INSTITUTE
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Institute and the Union have
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
In regard to framing a remedy in this case an issue exists
as to whether the relationship between the Institute and the
Union is such as to render the Union incompetent to
represent the Institute's employees at any time.10 The
evidence shows that less than a majority of the trustees of
the Institute are officials of the Union and that, although
the principal officers of the Institute are officials of the
Union, the day-to-day operations of the Institute are
conducted by administrators who have no affiliation with
the Union. The violations of the Act in this proceeding
arise from the fact that the Institute delegated responsibili-
ty to Paul Akers, the union president, to represent it in
collective-bargaining negotiations. This vice can be cor-
rected by the Institute adopting a policy whereunder
responsibility for negotiations will be delegated to persons
who are not officials of the Union. Also, it may be possible
for the Institute to take appropriate action to insure that if
any union officials serve as officers of the Institute they
shall not be involved in the negotiation or ratification of
any collective-bargaining agreement between the Institute
and the Union or in any other labor relations matter.
Accordingly, I shall recommend a remedial order herein
similar to the order of the Board in United Mine Workers of
America Welfare and Retirement Fund supra. When and if a
petition for certification of representative shall be filed with
the Board, the Board can determine whether the objection-
able conduct has been remedied and whether the Union is
qualified to act as the representative of the Institute's
employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is not qualified to act as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees of the
Institute.
2. By being parties to and by maintaining in effect and
enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement which
among other things requires the employees covered thereby
as a condition of employment to become and to remain
members of the Union, although the Union is not qualified
to act as their collective-bargaining representative, the
Institute has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act and the
Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(X)(A) of the Act.
LO Compare the remedy in United Mine Workers of America Welfare and
Retirement Fund supra, with the remedies in Centerville Clinics, Incorporateda
supra, and Medical Foundarion of Bellaire, supra.
n1 The complaint also alleges that the execution of the 1973 agreement
was unlawful. As the agreement was executed more than 6 months before
the filing of the charges in these proceedings, I shall make no finding that
the execution of the agreement was unlawful.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in these
proceedings, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 12
A. The Respondent, St. Louis Labor Health Institute,
St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing Teamsters Local Union No. 688,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of any of its
employees unless and until the National Labor Relations
Board shall certify the Union as such representative.
(b) Maintaining or giving any force or effect to any
collective-bargaining agreement, oral or written, with the
Union, provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall
require the Institute to rescind, vary, or abandon any wage,
hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of the relation-
ship between the Institute and its employees which may
have been established in the performance of any contract
between the Institute and the Union, or to prejudice the
assertion by its employees of any rights they may have
thereunder.
(c) Encouraging membership in the Union, or any other
labor organization, by conditioning the hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of
any of its employees upon membership in, or dues payment
to, any such labor organization, except as authorized by
Section 8(aX3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of any of its employees unless and until said Union has
been duly certified as such representative by the National
Labor Relations Board.
(b) Jointly and severally with the Union reimburse its
employees, former and present, for all dues, assessments,
and fees exacted from them by or on behalf of the Union
since January 8, 1976, with interest thereon at the rate of 6
percent per annum.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order hereli 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.
183
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its premises in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A."' 3 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by its authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Institute immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Institute to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Institute has taken to comply herewith.
B. The Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 688,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, St.
Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of any of the Institute's employees unless and
until certified as such representative by the National Labor
Relations Board.
(b) Attempting to enforce or to apply any collective-
bargaining agreement, oral or written, with the Institute
and from entering into, maintaining, or enforcing any
collective-bargaining agreement with the Institute unless
and until the Union has been certified as the representative
of the employees as provided by Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
the Institute's employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with the Institute reimburse the
Institute's former and present employees for all dues,
assessments, and fees exacted from them by or on behalf of
the Union since January 8, 1976, together with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at the Union's business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."' 4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 signed
copies of said notice for posting by the Institute at all
places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
13 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
4 See fn. 13, surpa.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT recognize Teamsters Local Union No.
688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of any of our employees unless and until said
Union has been certified as such representative by the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT apply to any of our employees any
agreement, oral or written, with said Union.
WE WILL NOT withhold or deduct from the wages of
any of our employees any moneys pursuant to the
checkoff provisions of any agreement, oral or written,
that we may have had with said Union.
WE WILL NOT contribute support to the Union in any
other manner.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Teamsters
Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by conditioning the hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment of any of our
employees upon membership in, or dues payment to,
any such labor organization except as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
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, join, or assist
labor organizations, 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, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Teamsters Local
Union No. 688, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, reimburse our former and
184
ST. LOUIS LABOR HEALTH INSTITUTE
present employees for any dues assessments and fees
paid to the Union by deductions from their wages or
otherwise on and after January 8, 1976, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
ST. Louis LABOR HEALTH
INSTITUTE
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining
representative of any employees of St. Louis Labor
Health Institute unless and until we are certified as
such representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT attempt to enforce or to apply to
employees of St. Louis Labor Health Institute any
agreement, oral or written, with the Institute.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees of St. Louis Labor Health Institute
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL jointly and severally with St. Louis Labor
Health Institute reimburse the Institute's former and
present employees for all dues, assessments, and fees
paid to us on and after January 8, 1976, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION
No. 688, AFFILIATED WITH
THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
185