Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tom-A-Hawk Transit , Inc. and Division 215,
Amalgamated Transit Union . Case 13-CA-8252
January 15, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 10, 1968, Trial Examiner Thomas
A. Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices 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 filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations 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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Tom-A-Hawk
Transit, Inc., Aurora, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'In the absence of exceptions , we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's
failure to find that Respondent 's statements to prospective employees
during the course of employment interviews constituted independent
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding was held before the duly
designated Trial Examiner on July 23, 1968, at Aurora,
Illinois, on complaint of the General Counsel against
Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc., herein called the Respondent
or the Company. The issue litigated is whether the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the statute in its
admitted refusal to bargain with Division 215,
Amalgamated Transit Union, herein called the Union.
Briefs were filed after the close of the hearing by the
General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc., was chartered as an Illinois
corporation in December 1967 for the purpose of doing
business as the public bus transportation system for the
City of Aurora, Illinois. It began operations early in the
morning of February 1, 1968. Between that day and July
22, 1968, the day before the hearing, it purchased gasoline
and oil, in the sum of $2,000, from local', suppliers to,
whom the gasoline and oil had been shipped directly from
out-of-State sources. By projection of this figure,
Tom-A-Hawk will have expended in excess of $3,000 for
such purchases during its first year of operations,
February 1968 to February 1969. Tom-A-Hawk also
stipulated with the General Counsel that during that same
1-year period, its gross volume of income derived from the
operation of the city bus lines will be in excess of
$175,000.
The Board's jurisdiction, in terms of its established
jurisdictional requirement standards, is satisfied by virtue
of Tom-A-Hawk's common ownership and control with
Aurora Educational Tours, Inc., a separate corporate
entity which has long operated school buses under
agreement with the municipal authorities of the City of
Aurora, and a private charter bus business in the general
area. Mr. Bryan Vinson, Jr., is president of both
Tom-A-Hawk and Educational Tours; J. D. Gresham is
vice president of the first company and the
secretary-treasurer of the second; and Arthur J Crow is
secretary-treasurer of the first and vice president of the
second. The two companies function out of common
offices; together they operate from the same garage
location, utilizing the same facilities, where mechanics
employed by Tom-A-Hawk occasionally work on buses
operated by Educational Tours. In emergency situations,
drivers of the latter company drive buses for
Tom-A-Hawk. Vinson testified that Gresham does the
hiring for Tom-A-Hawk, but the record in its entirety
shows clearly that all three of the officers interviewed and
hired most of the employees who joined the new company
when it began operations. All three also do the hiring for
Educational 'Tours During the past calendar year, the
gross volume of business of Educational Tours exceeded
$115,000.
In view of the above facts it is clear that the operations
of the two companies may be viewed as a single integrated
business for purposes of testing jurisdiction, and that
therefore the volume of business of both may be
considered as one for purposes of testing the Board's
jurisdiction.' Accordingly I find that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union , is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
IN L R.B v City Yellow Cab Co , 344 F;-2d 575 (C.A 6), enfg. 144
NLRB 994, Charleston Transit Company , 123 NLRB 1296
174 NLRB No. 24
TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT, INC. 125,
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This is a refusal-to-bargain case. On February 1, 1968,
Tom-A-Hawk began to operate the public bus
transportation system for the City of Aurora. For years
before this, Aurora City Lines, a separate entity, had been
in the same business, performing the same public service,
for the same city; City Lines ceased operations at the very
moment Tom-A-Hawk took them over. In mid-January,
with the planned changeover a matter of public
knowledge, the Union, which for some 30 years had
represented the bus operators and maintenance employees
of City Lines, demanded that the new company recognize
it and bargain; the Respondent refused. This refusal is
said to have been a violation of Section 8(a)(5) by
authority of a long line of Board and court decisions
holding that a successor employer who continues the same
"employing enterprise" is obligated to deal with the
established bargaining agent of the still existing group of
employees.
At the time of the demand and refusal, and again at the
hearing, the Respondent justified its position on the
ground that it is not the successor to City Lines, and for
this reason has never been under duty to bargain with the
Union which previously dealt with another employer.
There was some suggestion at the hearing of a further
defense based on assertion that by February 1, 1968, the
Union no longer was majority representative of the
employees involved, but this argument is not repeated in
the Respondent's brief, and seems to have been
abandoned.
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent's
officials unlawfully coerced employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1), in statements that this Company would in
no event tolerate a union in its affairs, and even
threatened to discharge any person who might attempt to
organize the men thereafter. The Respondent denies any
threats were made at all.
The Facts Concerning Successorship
Concerning the facts truly pertinent to the question
whether the "employing enterprise" continued without
significant change on February 1, there is no dispute. It
was known before the end of the year that the old city bus
company was going out of business for economic reasons.
The city fathers took upon themselves the responsibility of
assuring uninterrupted service to the public and to this end
started negotiating with the owners of Educational Tours
- Messrs. Vinson, Gresham, and Crow. For this purpose
Tom-A-Hawk was formally incorporated by charter in
December, and on January 2 signed a very detailed
contract with the city. The agreement required the new
company to continue the same bus service, along the same
streets and on the same schedules as the old bus company,
to start the very morning after the old one ceased. There
was an understanding even then that with time there
would be changes in rerouting of some buses along
different streets, together with revised time schedules and
bus stops or terminal point locations. The old company
was franchised by the Illinois Commerce Commission; the
new one is authorized directly by the City Council of
Aurora. Permission for the city to grant this authority was
obtained by petition filed with and approved by the State
Commission. Proposed changes in routes or any other
aspect of the public service are now submitted to and need
be approved only by the City Council.
The buses of the old City Lines company were
delapidated and worn; none were passed on to the
Respondent. Part of the city's agreement with
Tom-A-Hawk was that the city would purchase 10 new
buses and lease them to the company, for periodic
payments. The express arrangement is that when these
payments will have equaled the cost of the buses to the
city, Tom-A-Hawk can take title to them upon payment
of a nominal amount. The city in fact did purchase new
buses, which have gasoline engines and carry 23
passengers each; the old city buses were diesel powered
and had a 35 passenger capacity. Tom-A-Hawk is now in
process of acquiring four additional used buses in its own
name. There were other changes in methods of operations.
The fare was reduced from 30 cents to 25 cents; tokens
were done away with except for a short period while the
new company continued to accept some outstanding
tokens; a charge was established for transfers, which used
to be given free. Further, Tom-A-Hawk operates out of a
garage which was also used by Educational Tours, here
the buses are serviced and stored. The old company used
another garage at a different location. There were also
changes in working conditions, that is, employee benefits,
primarily in wage rates, as well as in fringe benefits. But
these latter details more appropriately belong to another
aspect of the case.
Aware of their immediate employer's intention to
abandon the city bus line, employees of Aurora City Lines
started to apply for work with the Respondent in
December, and Vinson began to interview them With the
final city contract signed on January 2, the new company
advertised for employees in the local newspapers.
Beginning early that month, and continuing until February
1, many of the old drivers and maintenance men applied
for work. In each instance, Vinson, sometimes together
with Gresham and Crow, explained to them precisely what
the conditions of employment would be; he detailed a
10-cent-per-hour increase in pay from $2.25 to $2.35, a
$72 annual allowance for uniforms, certain paid holidays,
and insurance benefits. The wage increase, of course, was
a change; counsel for the Respondent concedes in his brief
that the clothing allowance, insurance and vacation
benefits "were unique and unrelated to Aurora City
Lines."
In most of the hiring interviews the question of the
Union came up. Some applicants asked whether the
Company would continue to deal with the Union,
particularly with respect to contributions to the Union's
pension fund. There is also direct evidence that Vinson at
times himself injected the subject of the Union into the
conversations. In any event, in virtually every instance
Vinson had occasion to say that there would be no union
among his employees, that he did not intend to pay
pension benefits. Exactly how he phrased his position, and
whatever else he may have said, will be set out more
precisely below. Also, in mid-January, Donald Curtin,
member of the Union executive board, and a
representative of the Union, called on Vinson with two
others and requested that he bargain. Vinson refused, after
stating he knew the old company had dealt with the
Union.
Aurora City Lines ran its last buses during the night of
January 31, and early the next morning the Respondent
took over. On that day it had 24 employees, operators and
maintenance men; of these, 14 were formerly employed by
Aurora City Lines. In addition there was Richard Douglas
at work, who had left Aurora City Lines 1 week before.
There had been some turnover by the time of the hearing
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on July 23, and there then were only 10 former employees
of the old company at work. Aurora City Lines employed
a total of 23 to 24 operators and maintenance men when
it went out of business. These were the classifications
which constituted the appropriate unit as of old under the
union contract.'
Successorship: Substantial Continuity in the
Employing Enterprise
The test of successorship, as that concept has been
applied by the Board and the courts where the duty to
bargain under this statute is brought in question, turns on
the subsidiary question whether the business being carried
on after a change in identity of the employer is in reality
the same employing enterprise as in the past . . we
necessarily deal in terms of succession of employment,
and not succession of employers, i.e., in terms of the
continued nature of the employment rather than the
source of such employment."3 "The controlling fact in
each case is therefore whether the employment enterprise
substantially or essentially continues under the new
ownership as before." Cruse Motors, Inc., 105 NLRB
242, 247. In its brief the Respondent misconceives the test
of its statutory obligation in stating the issue as being
whether Tom-A-Hawk is a "successor corporation" to
Aurora City Lines. It is not the continuity of the
employer, corporate or otherwise, that governs. Rather:
"The duty of an employer who has taken over an
`employing industry' to honor the employees' choice of a
bargaining agent is not one that derives from a private
contract, nor is it one that necessarily turns upon the
acquisition of assets or assumption of other obligations
usually incident to a sale, lease, or other arrangement
between employers. It is a public obligation arising by
operation of the Act. The critical question is not whether
Respondent succeeded to White Castle's corporate identity
or physical assets, but whether Respondent continued
essentially the same operation, with substantially the same
employee unit whose duly certified bargaining
representative was entitled to statutory recognition at the
time Respondent took over ." Maintenance , Inc , 148
NLRB 1299. On a broader, but equally applicable basis:
"The objectives of national labor policy, reflected in
established principles of federal law, require that the
rightful prerogative of owners independently to rearrange
their businesses and even eliminate themselves as
employers be balanced by some protection to the
employees from a sudden change in the employment
relationship." John Wiley and Sons v. David Livingston,
376 U.S. 543.
The Respondent makes much of the fact it had no
dealings with Aurora City Lines at all, that it took no
assets or privileges from the old company directly. But
compare West Suburban Transit Lines , 158 NLRB 794,
where the Board found successorship despite the fact the
named respondent had taken over from a receiver, who in
turn had displaced an original operator of the bus system.
Applying these principles to the pertinent facts in the
case at bar, I am of the opinion that the Respondent's
business is substantially the same employment enterprise
'The complaint alleges , the answer admits, and I find that all motor
coach operators and maintenance employees of the Respondent, excluding
office clerical employees , professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
'N.L.R.B v McFarland , 306 F.2d 219 (C A. 10), enfg. 131 NLRB 745
as the one previously carried on by Aurora City Lines.
Transportation of the public by bus along the streets of
the city it was, and transportation of the public along the
city streets it continued to be.4 The old company had, and
the new one still enjoys a protected monopoly in the
public transportation. One was called a franchise from the
Illinois Commerce Commission, the other an exclusive
contract grant by the City Council. In terms of what work
the employees did before and after, this is not'a significant
thing. Bus drivers they were and bus drivers they remain.
The work duties and their essential function is unchanged.
When the Respondent started to run the buses on
February 1, it serviced exactly the same routes and time
schedules of its predecessor. There were changes a few
months later; certain lines were rerouted along different
streets, and the terminal location was changed. The
service garage is located elsewhere in the city, the fare is
decreased, the transfers bear--a different company name.
But these are not changes of substance so far as the work
to be done is concerned, or in terms of what employment
is required and performed to run a public bus service for
the city. The buses are new, and carry 23 instead of 35
persons. It was even shown that they are now air
conditioned. Had the old company bought replacement
buses, changed the fare, moved a few lines to run along
one street instead of another, I doubt it could be said the
employment aspect of the business underwent an essential
change. Aurora City Lines owned its own buses; the
Respondent rents them from the city. In fact, however,
the statement "rental" in the contract is virtual purchase
payment, for when enough has been paid the buses will be
the property of Tom-A-Hawk. It is true that in some
precedent cases the second employer's outright purchase
of equipment, machines, or transportation equipment from
the predecessor are deemed pertinent to the successorship
question. But those are situations where the consumer
customers may vary, or the product, or the geography
Such would be the case in production or service industries
in which individual small employers enter and depart.
A majority of the Aurora City Line employees moved
right along with the employment enterprise to become
direct employees of the Respondent. The last written
agreement that company had with the Union by its terms
was to expire on December 31, 1967, and apparently the
very abandonment of the business was timed with
termination of the contract term. There is uncontradicted
evidence that by oral agreement the Union and City Lines
undertook to continue the old contract in effect on a
day-to-day basis thereafter. There was a union security
clause, and all of Aurora's employees paid their dues for
January by checkoff; Aurora sent this money to the
Union towards the end of December. It does not appear
that during January there was any substantial check-off of
dues for the month of February. By this time, however,
Vinson, for the Respondent, had told all applicants for
employment there would be no union in his company. If
advance payment of union dues then for the following
month fell off, this was to be expected. It does not weaken
the presumption of continuing majority representative
status that arises as a ,matter of law from the long history
of continuing contracts extending into the month of
January.
'From the transcript testimony of Mr. Vmson.
Q (By Mr Barnett) To make it clear for the record , Tom-A-Hawk
has one job and one only , and that is to transport persons for hire from
points within the city limits of Aurora to another9
A. Right
TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT, INC.
There is some indication in the testimony that during
the month of January an element of discord developed
among the men, while still working for Aurora City Lines,
on the question of whether to continue or to stop paying
dues to the Union at all. In the course of the hearing,
during his examination of witnesses, counsel for the
Respondent implied that the new company may have had
a good-faith doubt about the Union's majority status
when it refused to bargain on request. As set out above,
the argument in defense is, not made in the Respondent's
brief. In any event, assuming this to be an alternative
defense to the complaint, it is not supported by the record.
The inference is clear that whatever abandonment of the
Union there may have been was as much a result of the
Respondent's direct message to all that it would be futile
to persist in pushing the Union at the moment, as it might
have been caused by other factors. More important, at the
time of refusal, both when voiced to the union agents and
to the employees themselves, no question was raised about
the Union's representative authority. Compare: Rohlik,
Inc., 145 NLRB 1242.
I find that Tom-A-Hawk is a successor to Aurora City
Lines by virtue of the continuing employment enterprise
which it undertook on February 1, 1968, and as such was
obligated to bargain with the Union as successor. I
therefore find that by its refusal to recognize and bargain
with the charging Union the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
8(a)(1)
Vinson did more than tell the representatives of the
Union that he would not bargain with the labor
organization; he also told the applicants for employment
individually there would be no union involved in
Tom-A-Hawk's projected operations. According to some
witnesses he even said he would discharge any who
attempted to establish a union as bargaining agent. The
General Counsel contends that not only the threats, but
also the very act of telling employees in advance of their
hire that the employer would not tolerate collective
bargaining at all, constituted restraint and coercion
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Merle Russell, a bus driver, testified that when detailing
the employment conditions which would prevail, Vinson
added "he [Vinson] would hope to do better than that
later, why maybe we would get it up to $3 an hour ... he
said that there was a possibility that we might have profit
sharing in the future if things went good." Russell
continued that Vinson then himself brought up the subject
of the Union. ". . . he complained to me that as far as the
union was concerned that right at present that he had no
objections, but he couldn't have it right then because he
couldn't afford it." -
Harold Woods, another driver, was interviewed by both
Vinson and Mr. Crow. He recalled that after saying the
pay would be $2.35 per hour, with 6 paid holidays and
uniform allowances, Vinson "said there,was no union ...
he wasn't union at the present time . . . they might later
on - maybe go into a union later, but not at the present
time."
Steven Carter and Robert Dray, also drivers formerly
with Aurora City Lines, said they applied together on
January 27, and sat in Vinson's office with both his fellow
officers, Gresham and Crow. As Carter testified, Vinson
first explained precisely the working conditions, and then
.. in regards to the Union, there would not be a union
at the present time, but maybe in time they would
127
recognize the union. But if they caught anyone trying to
organize the union or talk about unions on the premises of
the company they would be fired." This was Carter's
testimony on direct examination by the General Counsel.
On cross-examination, he quoted Vinson differently: "He
said that we would be fired if there was any obstructions
regards a union, no union activity. . . If there was any
obstruction regarding the service of the company in regard
to union activity, such as strikes. I mean like that."
Dray's testimony is that after discussing the various
details of compensation and individual benefits the
employees would receive, Vinson simply said, ". . that
there wouldn't be a union here for at least six months, but
after that he felt we could get one in. But he felt that he
would fire the first man that would put one in before six
months. That's all I really remember about it."
Vinson recalled telling all applicants what the new wage
rate would be, with improved vacation and other benefits.
He also said he did tell virtually all of the men there
would be no union. As he recalled it, it was they who
inquired, some wanting to know also whether
Tom-A-Hawk would continue making payments into the
union pension fund. "Several of the employees that we
interviewed asked if we would have a union when they
came to work for us, and in answering their question I
had to use the word `union' by saying that we would not
have a union when we began operations February the
1st." "Mr. Dray and Mr. Carter were both told in the
presence of Mr. Crow, Mr. Gresham and myself that our
company would not in the future have any objection to the
organization, of a union, but we did not feel obligated to
assume a union of another organization when we were not
assuming that organization's ownership or control or their
interstate authority or anything else, and that if our
employees came to work for us and decided later that they
would like to have a union, this would be their
prerogative." ". . we simply made them aware of the
fact that we were beginning as a new company. And I said
I would like to have a few months in which we could
become familiar, familiar with bus routes in Aurora,
make the study that the city council and Mayor had so
requested us to make to make the changes in routes that
they felt should be made. And then I said that after we
had gotten our feet on the ground and we knew a little bit
about public transportation in Aurora and how to serve
the needs of the people, I said if the employees would
want a union, not any particular union, but if they would
want to form a union that we would have no objection to
the formulation of that union."
I do believe the -employee witnesses, however, that at
times it was Vinson himself who injected the subject in the
interview conversations; once he said "it was a general
topic of discussion."
As to his talk with Carter and Dray, Vinson
unequivocally denied having threatened them, or any other
applicants for employment, with discharge should there be
any attempt to bring a union into the company. He did
testify that a few days before operations started, he had
heard a rumor about some employees planning to work
only a few days, Friday and the weekend, and then strike
"and keep anybody from taking buses out on the routes."
He said that in consequence of this report he told a
gathering of employees that "anyone who attempted to
obstruct the operation of the bus routes on Monday,
February 5, would be discharged from duty with
Tom-A-Hawk Transit."
On the question of what kind of threat was voiced to
the employees, I credit Vmson's version of what he said.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dray put that one phrase in his mouth and could recall no
other reference to the Union in the entire hiring interview.
Carter first said Vinson made a threat apart from any
kind of union talk. When pressed, he added Vinson had
talked about "obstruction of services," and strikes, when
articulating the threat. But this version does not
substantially conflict with that of Vinson I do not think
the adverse admission, drawn from Carter on
cross-examination, was cured by the fact that when asked
to repeat the conversation a third time on redirect, he
carefully removed the word "obstruction" from the
quotation. I find that Vinson told the men they would be
discharged if they attempted physically to obstruct the
Respondent's operations, a statement he could lawfully
make. I do not believe he threatened to discharge anyone
merely for talking about the Union, or trying to organize
the new complement.
All this, however, does not excuse his repeated
statement to the former employees of Aurora City Lines,
or even to stranger applicants, that he would not bargain
with the Union until a later day when in his opinion the
time would be appropriate; The statutory right of
employees to engage in collective bargaining through a
union of their choice cannot await the good graces of the
employer And it may well be, as the General Counsel
argues, that the mere statement by an employer that he
intends to operate without recognizing a union for a
period of time brings an improper coercion to bear upon
the employees' protected freedom to engage in union
activities. I doubt, however, any useful purpose would be
served by probing that question minutely in the
circumstances of this case. The Respondent concedes it
told the union representatives it would not bargain. It
repeated the statement of position to the employees
themselves. To find, as suggested, that by the act of telling
the employees individually, a further, distinct and
cumulative unfair labor practice was committed, would
seem to belabor the point. In the context of an
out-and-out order to bargain, which must issue in this
proceeding, precise inquiry into the further pinpointed
alleged violation becomes almost an abstraction If the
finding of successorship is a good one, the Respondent
must bargain with the Union regardless of whatever
Vinson may have told individual employees If
Tom-A-Hawk is not to be deemed a successor in the
8(a)(5) sense, no amount of coercive statements of
intention not to deal with any union could warrant an
affirmative order to bargain. It might as well be said that
in addition to a broadside illegal refusal to bargain in
rejecting the request of the union officers, Vinson also
violated the statute, and committed unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(5), each time he spoke to a
prospective employee about conditions of employment and
changed whatever their terms had been before. The whole
of necessity includes the sum of its parts. But no real
purpose would be served by cumulative findings of
independent unfair labor practices each time Vinson
unilaterally spoke to employees, behind the back of the
majority representative, as it were.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations as
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All motor coach operators and maintenance
employees of the Respondent, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union, was on
February 1, 1968, and at all times thereafter has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on and after February 1, 1968, to meet
with the above-named labor organization and to bargain
with it for purposes of collective bargaining the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend
that Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc., Aurora, Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to- bargain collectively with Division 215,
Amalgamated Transit Union, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any
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 and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Division 215,
Amalgamated Transit Union, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all employees in the appropriate unit
described above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement
(b) Post at its offices and garage in Aurora, Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
'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 notice In the further
event that the Board 's,Order is enforced by a decree of a 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 "
TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT, INC.
Director for Region 13, shall, 'after being signed by the
Respondent representative, be posted by the Respondent
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
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps
it has 1 aken to comply herewith.'
'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 13, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent 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:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
129
assist any 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 and all such activities.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with this
union as the exclusive representative of all our
employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All motor coach operators and maintenance
employees, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Dated By
TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago , Illinois 60604 , Telephone
353-7597.