Vanella Buick Opel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 744 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vanella Buick Opel, Inc.' and Amalgamated Local
Union 3552 and Local 259, United Automobile
Workers International Union , United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America.3 Cases 22-CA-4373 and 22-CB-1857
December 28, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On September23, 1971, Trial Examiner James M.
Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, Respondent Union
filed exceptions, and the General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, only with respect to
the remedy.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order. '
ORDER
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent Employer, Vanella Buick Opel, Inc„
Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, and the Respondent Union, Amalgamat-
ed Local Union 355, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
(herein called Respondent Employer or the Company), on
February 26, 1971, and against Amalgamated Local Union
355 (herein called Respondent Union or Amalgamated) on
March 8, 1971. Based thereon the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board on behalf of the Board
issued a complaint on April 8, 1971, alleging.violation, of
Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by the Company and
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by Amalgamated. Both Respondents
filed answers denying the commission of unfair labor
practices. The issues posed were tried before me at Newark,
New Jersey, on June 14, 1971.
Two issues are presented. The first, about which there is
little controversy, is whether the Company recognized
Amalgamated and whether the two negotiated and
implemented a collective-bargaining agreement for compa-
ny employees at a time when a representation proceeding
was pending before the Board in which the results of a
Board-conducted election had not yet been certified. The
General Counsel contends that the Company thereby
interfered with its employees' Section 7 rights contrary to
Section 8(a)(1) and unlawfully assisted Amalgamated
contrary to Section 8(a)(2), and that Amalgamated
restrained and coerced the employees in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A). The second issue, strenuously contested,
is whether, assuming a violation by Amalgamated is found,
an extraordinary remedy as to it is warranted.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses,
and consideration of the arguments of counsel, the brief of
the General Counsel, and a letter in the nature of a brief for
Amalgamated, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
Respondent Employer, a New Jersey corporation, is
engaged at Plainfield and Scotch Plains, New Jersey, in the
retail sale of automobiles and servicing of automobiles at
the Plainfield location. During the calendar year of 1970 it
received gross revenue in excess of $500,000 from the sale
of products and services and received goods valued in
excess of $500,000 directly from points outside New Jersey.
See Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., 191 NLRB No. 107.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
1 Hereinafter referred to as Respondent Employer.
2 Hereinafter referred to as Respondent Union
3 Hereinafter referred to as Charging Party
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Trial Examiner: These consoli-
dated proceedings under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act), arise from
charges filed by Local 259, United Automobile Workers
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (herein called
Charging Party or UAW), against Vanella Buick-Opel, Inc.
Amalgamated and UAW are both labor organizations
which admit to membership employees of the Company
and which at times material to the present matter have
purported to represent its employees. See Vanella Buick
Opel, Inc., supra.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prior Events Involving the Company
As found by the Board in Vanella Buick Opel, UAW and
Amalgamated in September 1970 began organizational
campaigns among company employees culminating in a
consent Board election on October 8, 1970, among the
Company's service employees.' As a result of challenges
1 The election which was part of the proceedings in Case 22-RC-4745
was in a collective-bargaining unit consisting of all shop employees
194 NLRB No. 123
VANELLA BUICK OPEL, INC. 745
filed to two ballots cast in that election, the Regional
Director for Region 22 on October 30, 1970 , issued a report
on challenged ballots referring the matter to a Trial
Examiner for hearing. It was then consolidated for hearing
with unfair labor practice charges in the case cited above.
After a hearing Trial Examiner James V. Constantine
issued his Decision regarding the unfair labor practices,
reported on the challenges , and severed the representation
case, remanding it to the Regional Director with recom-
mendations . The Board Decision in the unfair labor
practice case is Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., supra, already
referred to. The representation proceeding (22-RC-4745)
was pending before the Board at the time of the events
hereinafter referred to and at the time of the hearing herein.
B. The Strike
On the morning of February 10, 1971, employees in the
Company's service and parts department went on strike.
One of the employees, service writer Gary Fischer, stood
outside the shop door as employees arrived beginning
about 7:30 a.m. and announced that they were on strike.
None went into work. They stood around or sat in their cars
until later in the morning and then went home. No union
agents were present. No picketing occurred and no picket
signs were used then or the following day.
Sometime on February 10 Fischer put in a telephone call
to the office of Amalgamated leaving a message for
Business Agent Lester Horowitz to get in touch with him.
When Horowitz received the message that evening, he
contacted Fischer by telephone and agreed to meet with the
employees on the following morning.
On the mornmg of February 11 when the employees
arrived at the shop at the normal time for commencing
work, they continued with the strike in the manner of the
previous day. In mid-morning Horowitz arrived and
conferred with them at a nearby luncheonette. He then
proceeded, accompanied by a delegation of three employ-
ees including Fischer, to the Company's Scotch Plains
location to confront Company President Nicholas Vanella.
Speaking for the group, Horowitz told Vanella that the
employees were on strike, that they did not wish to wait for
a decision from the Board in the pending proceeding, and
that they wanted an immediate contract. Vanella replied
that he could not deal with them because of the pending
Board proceeding. But when Horowitz stated that the
employees would not work until he negotiated, Vanella said
that he would negotiate, but under duress, if the men would
resume work during negotiations. Upon Vanella's assur-
ance that the Company would negotiate, the employees,
including two of the delegation meeting with Vanella,
returned to work and the strike ended. Vanella and
Horowitz, assisted by Fischer who remained with him, then
discussed contract terms.
In the latter part of the afternoon of February 11
Horowitz returned to the shop where he again met with the
employees. He reported to the assembled employees that
the Company and Amalgamated had agreed on the terms
of a collective-bargaining agreement which he recited to
including service writers, parts men, porters, lubrication men, bodymen,
polishers, and mechanics, excluding all other employees, including office
clerical employees, new and used car salesmen, watchmen, guards, and
them. These terms included, among other things, an
increased hourly wage rate for mechanics from $4 to $4.75.
The employees forthwith approved the terms arrived at and
also selected Fischer to be the Amalgamated shop steward.
Thereafter mechanics received the increased wage rate.
However no dues have been withheld for, or paid to,
Amalgamated. Whether the agreed-upon terms were ever
incorporated into a written contract does not appear. No
written instrument was offered in evidence.
C. Mitigation Efforts
On February 26 the UAW filed the instant unfair labor
practice charges against the Company and on March 8
those against Amalgamated. On March 16 all interested
parties conferred at the Board' s Regional Office regarding
these charges. Three days later, on March 19, Amalgamat-
ed's attorney, Harold Dublirer, wrote to the company
attorney, David Kramer, that, effective immediately,
Amalgamated was withdrawing from the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, would give no effect to it, would not act
as a representative of the Company's service employees,
and would not restrain or coerce these employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights. He also requested that the
Company post a copy of his letter in a conspicuous place at
the shop. The same day Dublirer wrote the Board's
Regional Office offering to settle the charges informally
while rejecting a formal settlement which the Regional
Office apparently was willing to accept. On March 22 he
also wrote each of the employees in the service department
repeating the statements made in his March 19 letter to the
company attorney.
On behalf of the Company, Attorney Kramer on March
22 wrote to the Regional Director stating, inter alia, that the
Company would not recognize Amalgamated or any other
union as the representative of its service department
employees until such a union was certified by the Board,
that the Company had not and would not give effect to the
collective-bargaining agreement with Amalgamated,2 that
the Company would post the March 19 letter to the
Company from Amalgamated's attorney, and that the
Company was willing also to settle the unfair labor practice
charges on an informal basis.
D. Conclusions as to Unfair Labor Practices
The evidence establishes that the strike of service
department employees on February 10 and II was their
own action. There is no evidence to support the suspicion of
the General Counsel that the strike was instigated by either
the Company or Amalgamated.
On February 11 Amalgamated, in the person of
Horowitz, undertook to negotiate with the Company on
behalf of these striking employees. At first the Company
refused to negotiate because of the pending representation
proceedings, but then, under the threat that the strike
would continue, agreed to negotiate on the condition that
the servicemen return to work during negotiations. In this
context contract terms were agreed upon and ratified by the
supervisors as defined in the Act.
2 As noted previously, however, the Company has continued to pay the
higher wage rate agreed to.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees that same day. At least one term of the new
agreement , the 75-cent increase in mechanics ' hourly wage
rate, was implemented and continued in effect at the time
of the hearing. The evidence does not establish what, if any,
other terms were put into effect . Nevertheless, the
agreement and the de facto representative status of
Amalgamated remained in effect slightly over 5 weeks,
from February 11 until March 19, when Amalgamated
disclaimed the agreement and its representative status.
In negotiating with Amalgamated and concluding and at
least partially implementing an agreement with it in the
face of the pending representation proceeding in Case
22-RC-4745 in which the representation of these same
employees was at issue and unresolved , the Company failed
in its obligation to maintain a neutral position . Breach of
this duty clearly infringed upon the employees ' Section 7
rights and constituted an unfair labor practice . Midwest
Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060 . This same
conduct rendered unlawful assistance and support to
Amalgamated , a further unfair labor practice . It is no
defense that it did so under duress of continued strike
action.
For its part Amalgamated similarly restrained and
coerced the employees regarding their Section 7 rights by
negotiating for them and concluding and implementing an
agreement at a time when the representation issue remained
pending before the Board ' and it plainly had not been
designated as their majority representative . In doing so
Amalgamated also committed an unfair labor practice.
Fiore Brothers Oil Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 191 , enfd. 317
F.2d 710 (C.A. 2).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) of the Act. Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., supra.
2. Amalgamated and UAW are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Vanella Buick
Opel, Inc., supra.
3. By conduct set forth in section III, above, which has
been found to constitute unfair labor practices, the
Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and rendered unlawful assistance and support to
Amalgamated, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act,
and Amalgamated restrained and coerced employees of the
Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in,unfair labor
practices, I will order them to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies
of the Act. The Company argues that it was caught in the
middle and realistically should not be faulted for having
dealt with Amalgamated under duress of a strike.
Amalgamated urges that if it violated the Act, it was all a
mistake. Both urge that in mitigation of their error they
have already taken steps which have substantially remedied
any unfair labor practices. Although there is a measure of
merit in these positions, I conclude that issuance of a cease-
and-desist order and posting of notices will provide greater
assurance to employees and the public. In this connection I
note that the record before me does not establish whether
Amalgamated's disclaimer letter of March 19 was in fact
ever posted in the shop. Also, in the interim there may have
been some turnover in the employee complement. Posting
of notices will advise all employees of the corrected position
of both Respondents. Moreover, even if Respondents have
in some measure corrected their unfair labor practices,
because this administrative proceeding deals with public
rights and policies, an official pronouncement in the form
of a Board cease-and-desist order is appropriate to provide
official resolution to whatever questions may persist in the
minds of anyone involved.
Because Amalgamated on other occasions has engaged in
unfair labor practices with respect to employers other than
the company here involved, I shall issue a broad order
designed to protect such employees. Raymond Buick, Inc.,
173 NLRB 1292, modified 182 NLRB No. 71, enfd. 445
F.2d 644 (C.A. 2).
The General Counsel urges a much more far-reaching
remedy as to Amalgamated. He seeks an order requiring
Amalgamated to cease and desist from acting as the
collective-bargaining representative of any employees of
any employer whom it does not presently validly represent,
unless and until the Board shall certify it as such
representative, with the proviso that, after it has been in
effect for 5 years, Amalgamated may apply to the Board for
release from such limitation upon a showing that during the
intervening period it has conducted itself in such a manner
that the limitation will no longer be necessary. This is
essentially the remedy recommended by Trial Examiner
Plaine in Raymond Buick, Inc., supra, which the Board did
not adopt under the circumstances there present, particu-
larly the length of time that had elapsed since previous
Board adjudications of unlawful conduct by Amalgamated
and the close factual and legal questions resolved in that
case. The Board there said "we do not believe the proposed
remedy is warranted at this time." However, noting
Amalgamated's past similar conduct and "its peculiar
proclivity to be involved in collusive situations," the Board
issued a broad order designed to protect the rights of
employees of other employers not involved in that case. The
Second Circuit in its decision of June 24, 1971, enforcing
the Board's Order, commented that "the remedies imposed
by the Board were all fully within its power."
The General Counsel in effect is saying that it is now time
to take another look at Amalgamated's history of violations
and to again consider the remedy recommended by Trial
Examiner Plaine in Raymond Buick. The General Counsel
cites the same Board cases involving Amalgamated that
preceded Raymond Buick and were considered in that case.
These were Lundy Manufacturing Corp., 125 NLRB 1188;
Fiore Brothers Oil Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 191; Salmirs Oil Co.,
139 NLRB 25; and Malcolm Konner Chevrolet, Inc., and
Konner Chevrolet, Inc., 141 NLRB 541. He adds to this list
VANELLA BUICK OPEL, INC.
the Raymond Buick case itself. But of course the findings in
that case were before the Board when it was decided and its
citation adds nothing new to the picture.
In addition he urges that since Raymond Buick Amalga-
mated has engaged in such further flagrant violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as to justify a conclusion that
the picture has now changed and an extraordinary remedy,
such as the Plaine remedy, is in order even though such was
not deemed appropriate by the Board at the time of the
Raymond Buick decision. No Board decisions as such are
cited to support this contention. In a post trial motion, the
General Counsel urges that judicial notice be taken of a
judgment in civil contempt issued July 12, 1971, by the
United States Court of Appeals for'the Second Circuit in
N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Local Union 355, 77 LRRM 3082,
in which Amalgamated and two of its named officials (not
involved in the present matter) were adjudged in civil
contempt. In that matter the court of appeals considered
and approved in all respects the report and findings of its
special master, John F. Dooling, Jr., United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of New York, on October 23,
1970, N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Local Union 355, 77 LRRM
2989. The General Counsel's motion also asks that judicial
notice be taken of the findings set out in the special master's
report. At the hearing in the present matter, held prior to
the issuance of the court of appeals' judgment in civil
contempt, judicial notice of the special master's report,
which had already been issued, was refused because of its
lack of finality. The court of appeals having now adopted
those findings, I grant the General Counsel's posthearing
motion to take judicial notice of both thejudgment in civil
contempt and the report and findings of the special master.
Amalgamated's opposition on the ground that in the
contempt litigation it is seeking review by the United States
Supreme Court is, in my view, without merit.
The court of appeals judgment in civil contempt and the
findings of its special master, which it adopts, demonstrate
additional violations of employee Tights by Amalgamated
and a continuation of its "peculiar proclivity to be involved
in collusive situations" noted by the Board in Raymond
Buick. The special master's findings deal with what may be
described as collusive conduct by Amalgamated in regard
to two employers, Robin Ford Sales, Inc., and Consolidat-
ed Petroleum Terminal, Inc. Neither of these situations
appears to be directly involved in unfair labor practice
cases before the Board. Both were situations involving
"other employers" within the meaning of three broad
orders issued by the Board and enforced by the court of
appeals. In one of these, N.L.R.B. v. Salmir Oil Co.
(unreported), the court's decree was entered by default. In
the other two, N.L.R.B. v. Richmond Rambler Sales and
N.L. R. B. v. Command Lincoln-Mercury Corp. (both unre-
ported), court decrees were entered by consent. None of
the conduct complained of in the contempt proceeding
involved employers, or employees of employers, named in
these three cases.
Nothing in the present case itself would justify the
extraordinary remedy sought by the General Counsel. The
3 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 the Recommended Order herein shall, as
747
violations here are perhaps more than technical, but their
impact has been watered down to virtually nothing by the
efforts of Respondents to mitigate their effect. For remedy
purposes the present case adds little to that which was
before the Board in Raymond Buick. Although the court of
appeals, in its contempt judgment, ordered Amalgamated
to take various steps to purge itself of contempt, it did not
include among those measures anything like the remedy
which the General Counsel now seeks. If that higher
authority has not availed itself of such stern measures, it is
difficult to see how the same circumstances justify them in
the present unrelated proceeding, the circumstances of
which show it to be singularly frail vessel for the cargo
which General Counsel would load upon it.
The remedy ordered by the Board (and approved by the
court), in Raymond Buick, is some indication of what the
Board deems appropriate. Considering that the proposed
remedy was not adopted there, nor was anything like it
included by the court of appeals among the measures
required of Amalgamated to purge itself of contempt, and
that the circumstances in the current case do not afford
compelling reasons for an extraordinary remedy, I
conclude that such is not appropriate. Accordingly, I
recommend a remedy similar to the Board's order in
Raymond Buick.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 3
ORDER
A. Respondent Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing Respondent Union, Amalgamated Local
Union 355, as the representative of any of its employees
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of
employment.
(b) Giving effect to the terms agreed upon in collective
bargaining with Amalgamated Local 355 on February 11,
1971, or any modification, extension, or renewal thereof;
provided, however, that nothing in this Decision and Order
shall require Respondent Employer to vary or abandon any
wage or salary, hours, seniority, or other substantive feature
of its relations with its employees, which it has established
in the performance of such agreed terms, or to prejudice the
assertion by employees of any rights they may have under
those terms.
(c) Giving any other assistance or support to Amalgamat-
ed Local 355.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives 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.
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
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act--
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Amalga-
mated Local 355 as the collective-bargaining representative
of any of its employees concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
terms or conditions of employment, unless and until the
Board shall certify Amalgamated, Local 355 as such
representative.
(b) Post at its premises at Plainfield and Scotch Plains,
New Jersey, copies of the attached notices marked
"Appendix A" and "Appendix B.114 Copies of the notice
Appendix A, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 22, after being duly signed by Respondent
Employer's representative, shall be posted by it immediate-
ly 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 Respondent
Employer to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail or deliver forthwith to the Regional Director for
Region 22 additional signed copies of the notice Appendix
A, on forms provided by the Regional Director and signed
on behalf of Respondent Employer as set out above, for
posting by Amalgamated Local 355 at its business offices
and meeting halls in conspicuous places, including places
where notices to members are customarily posted.
(d) Post and maintain at the same places and under the
same conditions provided in paragraph A2(b), above, as
soon as forwarded by the Regional Director for Region 22,
copies of the notice marked "Appendix B."
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent Employer has taken to
comply herewith.5
B. Respondent Union, Amalgamated Local Union 355,
its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the collective-bargaimng representative of
any of the employees of Respondent Employer, Vanella
Buick Opel, Inc., unless and until the Board shall certify it
as such representative.
(b) Giving effect to the terms agreed upon in collective
bargaining with Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., on February 11,
1971, or any modification, extension, or renewal thereof.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees of Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., or any other
employer, in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B."
Copies of notice Appendix B, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by
Respondent Union's representative, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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 to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Mail or deliver forthwith to the Regional Director for
Region 22 additional signed copies of the notice Appendix
B, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director and
signed on behalf of Amalgamated Local 355 as set out in
the preceding paragraph, for posting by Vanella Buick
Opel, Inc., at its premises in Plainfield and Scotch Plains,
New Jersey, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Post and maintain at the same places and under the
same conditions as provided in paragraph B2(a), above, as
soon as forwarded by the Regional Director for Region 22,
copies of the notice marked "Appendix A."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Amalgamated Local 355 has taken to
comply herewith .6
4 In the event that the Board 's Order is adopted by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notices reading "Posted
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
5 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in wasting , within 20 days
from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent Employer has taken to
comply herewith "
6 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in wasting , within 20 days
from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent Union has taken to
comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To
EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Notice to all employees and to all members of Amalgamat-
ed Local 355. The National Labor Relations Board having
found, after a trial, that we violated the Federal law by
recognizing and bargaining with Amalgamated Local
Union 355 and implementing terms agreed upon with that
Union:
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Amalgamated Local Union 355 as collective-bargaining
representative of any of our employees, unless and until
Local 355 is so certified by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the terms agreed upon in
collective bargaining with Local 355 on February 11,
1971, or to any modification, extension, or renewal
thereof.
VANELLA BUICK OPEL, INC. 749
WE WILL NOT give any assistance or support to Local
355.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to join or assist any labor
organization, to bargain, collectively concerning terms,
or conditions of employment through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
All of our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor
organization.
VANELLA BUICK OPEL, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To
EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Notice to all members of Amalgamated Local Union 355
and to the employees of Vanella Buick Opel, Inc. The
National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial,
that we violated the Federal law by representing the service
department employees of Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., and in
negotiating, agreeing upon, and implementing terms of
employment agreed upon with that Employer:
WE WILL NOT act as the collective-bargaining
representative of employees of Vanella Buick Opel, Inc.,
unless and until we have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as such representative.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the terms agreed upon in
collective bargaining with Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., on
February 11, 1971, or any modification, extension, or
renewal thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees of Vanella Buick Opel, Inc., or of any other
employer, in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to join or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from engaging in any such
activity.
AMALGAMATED LOCAL
UNION 355
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.