The Sinclair Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 182 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Sinclair Manufacturing Company and
International Union of District 50 , United Mine
Workers of America and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local No.
20, Party to the Contract . Case 8-CA-5052
August 21, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On March 6, 1969, Trial Examiner John G.
Gregg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the Party to the
Contract, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 20,' filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof.
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 connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner 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 the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, only to the extent consistent
herewith.
The Trial Examiner concluded that, by
recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters,
Respondent unlawfully assisted and supported the
Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act, and unlawfully interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. This conclusion was based on his
finding that International Union of District 50,
United Mine Workers of America,' had a
substantial claim to representation sufficient to raise
a genuine question concerning representation. For
the reasons set forth below, we find merit in the
exceptions of the Respondent and the Party to the
Contract to this finding.
Respondent is an Ohio corporation which has a
manufacturing plant in Toledo, Ohio, where it is
engaged in the production of detergents and
'Hereinafter called Teamsters
'Hereinafter called District 50 or the Charging Party or the
International.
containers. The Company and District 50 and its
Local No. 12087' have maintained continuous
contractual relations for about 25 years covering the
Respondent's production and maintenance
employees. The latest contract, which expired April
30, 1968, had been executed, like the parties'
preceding agreements, by officials of the
International on behalf of the Local, as well as by
the officers of the Local. In February 1968, the
Respondent wrote to both the Charging Party and
the Local requesting the opening of negotiations for
a successor agreement . Negotiations commenced
around March 15. Eight negotiating sessions took
place over a period of the next 6 weeks with
International Representative Thomason and a Local
committee of five or six members, including the
president and vice president of the Local,
representing the employees, and Crane Kendrick,
Respondent's vice president, secretary, and
treasurer, Gary Schreiber, Respondent's director of
manufacturing, and Jack Parco, Respondent's
assistant plant manager of the Toledo plant,
representing the Respondent.
In the negotiations held on April 30, Respondent
gave Thomason a list of economic proposals. The
parties had previously reached substantial accord on
all noneconomic items. Thomason and the Local
committee agreed to transmit the latest proposals to
their membership at a meeting scheduled for that
evening, and expressed confidence that the proposals
would be accepted by the membership. Following
the Union meeting, however, Thomason notified
Respondent by telephone that the membership had
rejected the proposals, and had voted to go on strike
for better terms. Picketing commenced at midnight
on April 30.
The negotiators met briefly on May 1, and again
on May 6, at which time Thomason proposed
certain changes in the economic items that he felt
would overcome the objections to the earlier
proposal. Another negotiating session was held on
May 8, at the office of the Federal Mediation &
Conciliation Service. Respondent at this time
offered new economic proposals which were
substantially identical with what Thomason had
proposed earlier, and the Union representatives
agreed to submit them to their membership. In
response to the Mediator's query, both parties
agreed that apart from the economic items, there
were no other unresolved contract issues.
Efforts were made to hold a union meeting during
the afternoon of may 8, but this did not prove
possible, and the meeting was therefore scheduled
for May 9, at 9:30 a.m. Meanwhile, a substantial
number of Respondent's employees, who were
interested in disaffiliating from District 50 met with
Attorney Jack Gallon at his office on May 7. All of
the officers of the Local attended that meeting,
which culminated in the officers issuing a notice
'Hereinafter called the Local
178 NLRBNo.29
SINCLAIR MFG. CO. 183
calling for a meeting of the membership of the
Local for 11 a.m. on May 9, to consider
disaffiliation. The notice was issued to picket
captains and posted around the picket line.
On May 9, before the scheduled 9:30 a.m.
contract ratification meeting, some of the employees
met with Gallon at the Teamster's hall. Gallon read
a resolution concerning, among other things,
disaffiliation from the Charging Party and it was
agreed that the resolution would be the first item to
be considered at the meeting that morning.
At the 9:30 a.m. meeting on May 9, the president
of the Local, Virginia Bailey, called for
consideration of Respondent's new contract proposal
but this subject matter was tabled. The disaffiliation
resolution was then read and after discussion it was
adopted by a vote of 88-7. Immediately following
this vote, the members voted 80-20 to accept
Respondent's new contract proposal. The question
of affiliation with another union was then brought
up and the members at this point, by a vote of 88-7,
approved a resolution to affiliate with the
Teamsters.
Although Thomason by his own account was
present for the disaffiliation vote and therefore was
aware of the fact that the employees by an
overwhelming margin had voted to disaffiliate from
District 50, he phoned Kendrick shortly after noon
that day, and reported only the Union membership's
approval of the proposed contract." He suggested
that he and Kendrick get together to put the
agreement in final form. Unaware at that stage of
what events had taken place, Kendrick agreed to
meet at l o'clock that afternoon with Thomason at
a motel to put the new agreement in writing. When
Thomason arrived, Kendrick was on the phone with
his attorney, who informed Kendrick that one of his
colleagues had had a telephone call from Gallon,
who demanded recognition of the Teamsters.
Apparently still unaware of the facts, or of the
significance of Gallon's demand for recognition on
behalf of the Teamsters, Kendrick asked Thomason
why he had not brought any of the Local committee
with him. Thomason replied that he could not get
them together but that he really did not need them
because he could sign the contract by himself.
Kendrick thereupon telephoned his attorney and was
informed of what had occurred at the morning
meeting. Kendrick then asked Thomason to tell him
exactly what occurred at the morning meeting.
Thomason told him there had been two votes at the
meeting- one to disaffiliate from District 50 and
another to accept the Company's proposal. He made
no mention of the third vote to affiliate with the
Teamsters.
Kendrick then confronted Thomason with the
information he had received from his attorney, that
the employees had also voted to affiliate with the
The Trial Examiner did not credit Thomason's testimony that he also
advised Kendrick at this time about the disaffiliation vote.
Teamsters, and that this indicated to Kendrick that
District 50 no longer represented Respondent's
employees. Thomason merely replied that the
purpose of the employees' meeting that morning had
been to vote on Respondent's contract proposal and
not to consider disaffiliation, but he did not deny
either that the employees had disaffiliated from
District 50 and had affiliated with the Teamsters, or
that he knew, as Kendrick indicated, that District 50
no longer represented the employees. Kendrick, in
response, told Thomason that he would under the
circumstances have to consult with his attorney at
this time, but asked Thomason whether he would
consent to a Board election. Thomason refused, and
Kendrick then left. Later that afternoon, Kendrick
met with Thomason again and informed him that, in
view of the developments, Respondent intended to
deliberate over its course of action. Thomason at
that point raised no claim that Respondent was
under a legal obligation to sign a contract with
District 50.
The next morning Kendrick called Thomason and
informed him that Respondent was unable to sign a
contract with District 50 and the Local in these
circumstances. Later in the day there was a meeting
at the office of Repondent's counsel between
Kendrick and Schreiber for Respondent, Attorney
Gallon, Teamsters' representative Gary Case, and
the entire Local bargaining committee, which had
previously joined Thomason in contract
negotiations. Gallon demanded recognition by
Respondent of the Teamsters as the representative
of Respondent's production and maintenance
employees on the basis of signed authorization
cards. Respondent said that it wanted an
independent verification of the cards and
arrangements were made for authentication by a
neutral party. The card check was undertaken by
Judge Bame, a member of the Toledo
Labor-Management Council, who reported that 80
of the Respondent's 112 employees had signed cards
authorizing the Teamsters to represent them. Before
the independent check was completed, Kendrick
received a call from Thomas Badoud, an official of
the International, who asked whether Respondent
was ready to continue and complete bargaining with
the International and "its Local." Badoud, at this
time, did not claim that District 50 represented any
of Respondent's employees or maintain that the
Local was still a functioning organization. Kendrick
told him that in view of developments Respondent
could not negotiate further with District 50. The
next day, May It, Kendrick met at the Teamsters'
offices with the bargaining committee. The
committee gave him a list of 10 or 15 items which
the members said required discussion. The items
were discussed and that afternoon a contract was
signed.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner's view, it is clear
that at no time after the disaffiliation vote and the
subsequent affiliation vote did District 50 or its
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local have a representative interest among
Respondent's employees. This is evident from the
fact that Thomason knew that the employees had
voted to disaffiliate from the Local and the
International at the time that he made his final
request to Respondent to complete the bargaining,
and that therefore it was unlikely that the Local was
still a functioning labor organization. District 50's
doubts on that score were made manifest by
Thomason's action in concealing from Respondent
the fact of the disaffiliation vote. With the further
knowledge by District 50 that the employees on
May 9, had also voted to affiliate with the
Teamsters, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that Badoud's mere request on May 10 to
Respondent to continue bargaining with the
International and its Local constituted neither a
valid nor even colorable claim to representative
status. Badoud, at this time, made no claim that the
International or its Local represented any employee,
that the Local officers had not abandoned their
official status in the Local, or that there still existed
a viable Local. In view of the foregoing, and on the
record as a whole, we find that Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by
recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters, and
accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN G. GREGG, Trial Examiner: This trial was held
before me in Toledo, Ohio, on November 19, 1968, on the
complaint of General Counsel and the answer of The
Sinclair Manufacturing Company, herein called the
Respondent. The complaint alleges violations of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Labor-Management Relations Act,
1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. At
the close of the trial briefs were filed by the General
Counsel, the Respondent and the Party to the Contract,
all of which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses as they testified, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent The Sinclair Manufacturing Company
is now and has been at all times material herein an Ohio
corporation engaged at its manufacturing plant in Toledo,
Ohio, in the production of detergents and containers. It
annually ships finished materials of a value in excess of
$50,000 from its Toledo, Ohio plant to points located
outside the State of Ohio. I find the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, herein called the Mine Workers, and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20,
herein called the Teamsters are and have been at all times
material herein labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges essentially that since on or about
May 1, 1968, the Respondent has rendered and is
rendering unlawful aid, assistance and support to the
Teamsters by recognizing the Teamsters as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent's
production and maintenance employees, engaging in
contract negotiations with the Teamsters, and executing a
contract with the Teamsters concerning rates of pay, and
other terms and conditions of employment for the
Respondent's production and maintenance employees with
knowledge of the status of the Mine Workers as the
previously recognized and incumbent bargaining
representative of its production and maintenance
employees and with knowledge of the existing continuing
claim of the Mine Workers to the status of exclusive
bargaining representative of the said employees, thereby
interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and thereby
rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
A. The Facts
There is no substantial disagreement concerning the
material facts of this case. Prior to April 30, 1968, the
International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers
of America and its Local No. 12087 maintained
continuous contractual relations with the Respondent
Company covering the Respondent's production and
maintenance employees for a period of about 25 years. On
April 30, 1968, the most recent 3-year contract between
these parties expired by its terms. Contracts between these
parties had been executed by both the officials of the
International Union of District 50 and officers of Local
No. 12087.
The record discloses that Crane Kendrick, vice
president, secretary and treasurer of the Respondent
Company for 5 years, and representative of the
Respondent in the negotiation of a collective-bargaining
agreement, sent a letter on February 26, 1968, to the
International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers
of America for the purpose of "notifying you of the
Company's desire to seek modifications in the current
collective-bargaining agreement with your organization."
The Company offered to meet and confer with union
representatives for the purpose of negotiating
modifications and specifically stated that upon receipt of a
reply, arrangements would be made with Mr. Thomason
of the Mine Workers relative to a mutually agreeable time
and place for beginning negotiations.
Copies of the foregoing letter were sent to Mr. W. P.
Thomason, International representative, and to Mrs.
Virginia Bailey, president of Local Union No. 12087.
SINCLAIR MFG. CO.
When negotiations commenced around March 15, 1968,
the Company was represented by Kendrick, Gary
Schreiber and Jack Parco. Representing the International
was W. P. Thomason of District 50 with a committee
including Gene Jankowski, Ann Connelly, Gene Hymore,
Melvin B. Szczepanski, and Virginia Bailey representing
the local.
At the last of the eight negotiating sessions, held on
April 30, 1968, Kendrick gave Thomason a list of
economic proposals. In the prior sessions the parties had
in principles reached agreement on substantially all
noneconomic items. Thomason and the committee agreed
that they would transmit the latest proposals to their
membership for acceptance and expressed confidence that
they would be accepted by the membership which was to
meet that evening . According to Kendrick, Thomason
called him that evening to inform him that the
membership had rejected the Company's proposal and had
voted to go on strike for better terms. The picketing
began at midnight, April 30, 1968.
The next day May 1, 1968, Kendrick had a brief
meeting with Thomason and the Local committee at his
plant office, at which time Thomason stated that he felt
the rejection was due to dissatisfaction with the money
items. Kendrick indicated the Company needed some time
to reevaluate the situation, some picketing ground rules
were discussed and the meeting was over.
A few days later on May 6, 1968, a further meeting
was held at which time Thomason proposed certain
changes in the economic itenhs and expressed his feeling
that these would overcome the objections to the earlier
proposal.
Another meeting was held on May 8, 1968, at the
offices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
attended by company representatives, Thomason and the
Local committee and a Federal mediator. At this meeting
Kendrick offered new economic proposals which in most
respects complied with the request of Thomason at the
May 6 meeting. According to Kendrick, at this time the
mediator inquired of those present whether or not there
were any other issues that were still unresolved and both
sides agreed there were none. Following the meeting
Thomason was to arrange a meeting of the membership at
2:30 that afternoon to vote on the new proposals. He later
advised Kendrick that he could not get the membership
together for a meeting at that time. Thomason then
scheduled the meeting for the next morning, May 9, 1968,
at 9:30 a.m.
Credible testimony of record establishes the fact that a
substantial number of employees of the Respondent
interested in disaffiliating from the Charging Party met
with Attorney Jack Gallon at his office on May 7, 1968.
This meeting was recessed to invite officers of Local
12087 to attend the meeting when it resumed, which was
done. At the close of the meeting a notice was issued for a
meeting of the membership of Local 12087 for 11 o'clock
in the morning of May 9 at the Toledo Central YMCA to
consider disaffiliation . The notice was issued to picket
captains and posted around the picket line.
On May 9, 1968, before the meeting scheduled for 9:30
by the Mine Workers on contract ratification some of the
employees met with Counsel Jack Gallon at Teamsters
Local 20' s hall. Gallon read a resolution concerning
among other things disaffiliation from the Charging Party.
It was agreed that this resolution would be the first item
for consideration at the ensuing 9:30 meeting.
As the 9 :30 meeting got under way Virginia Bailey,
president of Local 12087 called for consideration of the
185
Respondent's latest contract proposal. The membership
however, voted to table this matter and to have the
disaffiliation resolution read. After discussion the
disaffiliation resolution was adopted by a vote of 88 to 7,
even though Thomason had objected on the grounds of
improper procedure. Following the vote on the
disaffiliation resolution a motion to accept the
Respondent's last contract proposal was approved by an
overwhelming vote.
Following this the members considered the matter of
affiliating with another union. Gary Case, Organizing
Director for Teamsters Local 20, then addressed the
membership, following which the membership voted to
affiliate with Local 20.
According to Kendrick, about 12 noon on May 9, 1968,
Kendrick received a telephone call from Thomason
advising Kendrick that the membership had voted to
accept the Company's latest contract proposal by a vote
of 80 to 20 and Thomason proposed to Kendrick that they
get together to put the contract in final form and to sign
it that day. Thomason testified that he also advised
Kendrick at this time about the disaffiliation vote which
had taken place. I do not credit Thomason's testimony on
this point but accept the version of Kendrick whom I
found to be a straightforward sincere witness. Kendrick
advised Thomason he was prepared to go ahead, make a
typist available and began typing a version of the contract.
At 1 p.m. on May 9, 1968, Kendrick, Schreiber, Parco,
and a secretary met with Thomason at the Holiday Inn
Motel. According to Kendrick when Thomason arrived at
1 o'clock Kendrick was on the telephone with his counsel
who had indicated to Kendrick that certain things had
come to his attention as having occurred at the employees'
meeting that morning . Following his telephone call
Kendrick asked Thomason to tell him exactly what had
happened at the morning meeting. Thomason then advised
him there had been two votes at the meeting, the first to
disaffiliate from the Mine Workers, the second to accept
the Company's proposal.
According to Kendrick, he then informed Thomason
that the disaffiliation vote, and a subsequent affiliation
vote that he had heard about involving Teamsters 20,
made it appear that the Mine Workers no longer
represented the Company's employees. Thomason's
response was that the purpose of the employees' meeting
that morning had been to vote on the Company's contract
proposal, and not to consider disaffiliation. Kendrick then
told Thomason that he would have to consult with legal
counsel at this point, and asked Thomason whether he
would consent to an election by the National Labor
Relations Board which Thomason declined.
Kendrick then proceeded to visit his counsel, picking up
the company president on the way and leaving the others
to continue working on the draft of contract.
Sometime around 5:30 to 6:30 in the afternoon
Kendrick and Brown returned to the motel to advise
Thomason that in view of developments the company
intended to deliberate over its course of action. Thomason
requested that he be advised the next morning as to the
Company's decision. The next morning on May 10, 1968,
Kendrick called Thomason and advised him that the
Company was unable to sign a contract with the Mine
Workers and the Local in view of the circumstances.
On May 10, 1968, Kendrick, Schreiber, and their
counsel met at counsel' s office with the negotiating
committee. Thomason was no longer present but an
additional member had been added to the bargaining
committee. In addition the committee had present counsel
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jack Gallon, and Gary Case an official of the Teamsters'
Local 20. At this meeting Gallon advised the Company
that the Teamsters had an overwhelming majority of
authorization cards signed by the bargaining unit
employees and that the Teamsters were now representing
the employees. Gallon referred to a resolution that had
been adopted by the members that the officers would
continue and that the committee would function but that
they were disaffiliated from the Mine Workers.
At the same meeting of May 10, 1968, Gallon also
advised the Company that the employees had on May 9,
1968, voted to accept the Company's contract proposals
and that except for certain areas of language difficulty
and a back to work agreement the Teamsters negotiating
committee had no intention of seeking different contract
terms. The Company then indicated it wanted an
independent verification of the cards. Arrangements were
then made to have the cards checked by Judge Bame, a
member of the Toledo Labor-Management Council. Judge
Bame confirmed the Teamsters majority status. Before the
independent check was completed Kendrick received a
telephone call from Badoud an official of the U. M. W.,
who asked whether the Company was ready to continue
and complete bargaining with District 50 and its Local
12087. Kendrick advised him that in view of the
developments the Company could not do so. Judge Bame
completed his check on Friday evening at which time
Kendrick was advised that the Teamsters had in fact an
overwhelming majority.
The next morning May 11, 1968, at 9 o'clock Kendrick
and Case met at the Teamsters' offices with the
committee. At this session the committee submitted a list
of 10 or 15 items which they said required discussion.
Discussions were carried on and at 4 o'clock that
afternoon a contract was executed.
B. Discussion
Based upon the record as a whole I am convinced that
a real question concerning representation existed as a
matter of law when the Respondent on May 11, 1968,
recognized and contracted with the Teamsters as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's
employees. Under the long settled doctrine of the Board in
Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060, an
employer faced with conflicting claims of two or more
rival unions which give rise to a real question concerning
representation may not recognize or enter into a contract
with one of these unions until its right to be recognized
had finally been determined under the special procedures
provided in the Act.
In the case at hand a real question concerning
representation existed as a matter of law on May 11,
1968, when the Respondent Employer recognized and
executed a contract with the Teamsters Union. Under
these circumstances the Respondent Employer could not
assume to judge for itself upon a showing of authorization
cards , which of the contending unions was the statutory
representative of the employees. Novak Logging
Company, 119 NLRB 1573, 1575.
The claim of the Mine Workers to represent the
employees is found in the facts and circumstances of this
case . It included a long incumbency extending over a
period of 25 years during which time the Mine Workers
together with the local was actually engaged in
representing the employees of the Respondent and during
which time the Mine Workers were signatory to and
participated in the negotiation and execution of
collective-bargaining agreements. It is well settled that the
Board recognizes a substantial claim to representation
inherent in the very incumbency of a union. Air Master
Corporation, 142 NLRB 188.
Not only did a substantial claim exist by reason of the
long incumbency of the Mine Workers herein but the
claim was emphasized in my view in the case at hand by
the demands of both Thomason and Badoud,
representatives of the Mine Workers, for continued
bargaining and the execution of a contract.
While the Respondent argues that neither Thomason
nor Badoud, in their final requests to the Respondent to
pursue and complete the bargaining, claimed any longer to
represent the Respondent's production and maintenance
employees or any part of them, I nevertheless find
inherent in these requests by Thomason and Badoud for a
continuation of bargaining claim to the representation of
the employees by the Mine Workers. While the
Respondent argues that it had no good faith doubt as to
the only majority status claim presented to it, the
Respondent begs the question of whether on all the facts
and circumstances herein there did not exist at that time
another and continuing claim to representation on the part
of the Mine Workers. I am convinced that there was such
a claim outstanding as a matter of law, and that
accordingly there existed a genuine question concerning
representation.
The Respondent adverts to the language of the Board
in The Boy's Market, Inc., 156 NLRB 105, wherein the
Board stated "However it is also established law that an
employer does not violate the Act by extending
recognition to one of the competing unions where the rival
union's claim is clearly unsupportable or specious, or
otherwise not a colorable claim. In such circumstances,
there is no real question concerning representation of
employees."
Based on all the facts and circumstances herein, I find
the claim of the Mine Workers, at the time material, to
be neither unsupportable nor specious, nor without color,
and accordingly find the existence of a real question
concerning representation.
Under these circumstances I find it unnecessary to pass
on the question of the validity of the disaffiliation and
affiliation actions of the members taken on May 9, 1968.
It is more significant to note that there was indeed a
question concerning the validity of the actions taken, that
this question was raised by Thomason, the Mine Workers
representative and that the Respondent clearly had notice
of this question at the time it chose to recognize and
contract with the Teamsters.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Sinclair Manufacturing Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America , and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 20 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters
Union as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's
production and maintenance employees at a time when a
question concerning the representation of such employees
existed the Respondent Employer thereby rendered and is
rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor
organization and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
SINCLAIR MFG. CO.
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the Act.
4. By recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters
Union as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's
production and maintenance employees at a time when a
question concerning representation of such employees
existed the Respondent Employer has interfered with,
restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Employer has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(2) and 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend an order
that the Respondent Employer cease and desist therefrom
and take affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent Employer
recognized and contracted with the Teamsters Union on
May 11, 1968, at a time when there existed a real
question concerning representation of the employees
covered thereby, in order to dissipate the effect of such
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend an order that
the Respondent withdraw and withhold recognition from
the Teamsters Union as the exclusive representative of the
production and maintenance employees and to cease
giving effect to the aforementioned contract until such
time as the Teamsters Union shall have been certified by
the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees
in question. Nothing herein shall, however, be construed
to require the Respondent Employer to vary or abandon
any existing term or condition of employment.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended, the Respondent, The Sinclair
Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20, or
to any other labor organization by recognizing and
contracting with such labor organization as the exclusive
representative of its production and maintenance
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining at a
time when there exists a real question concerning
representation
(b) Giving effect to its contract of May 11, 1968, with
the Teamsters Local 20 covering the production and
maintenance employees of the Respondent or to any
renewal, extension or modification thereof or supplement
thereto unless and until said labor organization has been
duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as
the exclusive representative of such employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
187
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
Teamsters Local 20 as the exclusive representative of its
production and maintenance employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining unless and until the said labor
organization has been duly certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of
such employees.
(b) Post at its manufacturing plant in Toledo, Ohio,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 8, after being signed by the
company's representative shall be posted by the
Respondent company immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent Employer to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in
writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the said notice. In the
further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court
of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
par. 2(b) hereof shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent Employer has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
After a hearing duly held, it has been determined that
this Company has violated the National Labor Relations
Act. In order to remedy this conduct we have been
required to post this Notice and to take the following
steps:
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute i support to
Teamsters Local 20 or to any other labor organization
by recognizing and entering into a collective-bargaining
agreement with such labor organization as the exclusive
representative of our production and maintenance
employees at a time when there exists a real question
concerning representation.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our contract of May 11,
1968, with the Teamsters Local 20 or to any renewal
extension or modification thereof or supplement thereto
unless said labor organization has been duly certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming, or remaining members of the
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
above-named or any other labor organization . This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
THE SINCLAIR or covered by any other material.
MANUFACTRUING If employees have any question concerning this notice
COMPANY or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
(Employer ) directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 1695 Federal
Dated By Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street , Cleveland, Ohio
(Representative ) (Title) 44199 , Telephone 522-3715, Area Code 216.