Waterfront Guard Assoc., Local 1852

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

WATERFRONT GUARD ASSOC., LOCAL 1852 513
Waterfront Guard Association, Local 1852, Independ-
ent Watchmen 's Association of the Port of Balti-
more and Amstar Corporation . Case 5-CB-1323
March 8, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On November 29, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Ivar H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and the General Counsel and
the Charging Party filed briefs supporting the
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
including the Respondent Union. From January 1, 1970,
through December 31, 1972, the Association and the
Respondent were parties to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the employees employed by members of the
Association for the performance of guard work. This
contract contained a valid union-security clause, providing
that as a condition of employment such employees should
become members of Respondent Union. The contract in
effect at the time of the hearing between the Association
and the Respondent covering guard work is effective from
January I, 1973, to December 31, 1975. The complaint
alleged that Amstar, although a member of the Associa-
tion, has at no time delegated any authority to the
Association to represent it in negotiations with the
Respondent Union concerning the employment conditions
of guards employed by Pinkerton at Amstar's refinery. The
complaint also alleged that since about October 5, 1972,
the Respondent Union had demanded that Amstar
recognize it as the collective-bargaining representative of
the guards employed by Pinkerton at Amstar's refinery and
has attempted to extend the union-security clause in the
association agreement to cover Pinkerton employees. In its
answer, the Respondent alleged that the Association had
authority to enter into a collective-bargaining agreement
on behalf of Amstar and did so.
On or about October 10 counsel for all parties filed briefs
with me, which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Waterfront
Guard Association, Local 1852, Independent Watch-
men's Association of the Port of Baltimore, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IvAR H. PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge: I heard
this case in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 12, 23 and
August 22, 1973, based upon the complaint issued by the
Acting Regional Director for Region 5 under date of June
7, 1973, which in tum was based upon a charge filed
November 27, 1972, by Amstar Corporation. Briefly stated,
the complaint alleged that since about September 1, 1960,
Amstar had contracted with Pinkerton, Inc., herein called
Pinkerton, for guard services at Amstar's Baltimore sugar
refinery. Pinkerton's employees, who performed the guard
services, had at no time selected the Respondent or any
other labor organization as their collective-bargaining
representative. Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore,
Inc., herein called the Association, is an association of
employers which employ members of the Respondent
Union and exists, in part, for the purpose of engaging in
collective bargaining with various labor organizations,
209 NLRB No. 87
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Amstar, a Delaware corporation , is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of refined cane sugar and syrup at its
Baltimore facility. It employs approximately 540 pro-
duction and maintenance employees and 22 longshoremen,
who are represented in separate bargaining units by
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America and International Longshoremen 's Associ-
ation , AFL-CIO , respectively . The record is clear that
during the 12 months preceding issuance of the complaint
Amstar sold and shipped products valued at in excess of
$50,000 to points directly outside the State of Maryland. I
find that Amstar is an employer as defined in Section 2(2)
of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act . I further find that the
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In addition to its own employees, Amstar has since 1960
contracted with Pinkerton for the supply of guard services
at the Baltimore facility. At the time of the hearing, there
were approximately nine full-time guards and three part-
time guards, all employed by Pinkerton and assigned to the
Amstar refinery. Since 1960, no other guards except
Pinkerton guards have been utilized by Amstar and at no
time has any Pinkerton employee at that facility been
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by the Respondent or any other labor
organization.
In 1922 , when Amstar began its Baltimore operations, it
hired its own employees to perform guard or watchmen
duties as required . At that time there were approximately
10 guards and 8 janitor-watchmen . The function of the
guards was to provide guard service in the general area of
the front gate, while the primary function of the janitor-
watchmen was to perform fire watching and janitorial
duties throughout the refinery , following prescribed ADT
routes. From 1922 until 1960, Amstar guards were never
represented by any labor organization although Amstar
did have a history of collective -bargaining relations with
respect to the janitor-watchmen.
The janitor-watchmen , between 1938 and 1948, were
represented by an independent local union confined to the
refinery . Thereafter, the janitor -watchmen and the pro-
duction and maintenance employees became members of
the United Packinghouse Workers of North America. In
September 1960 , Amstar, in an effort to improve plant
security, merged the functions of both the guards and the
janitor-watchmen and subcontracted the functions per-
formed by these two classifications to Pinkerton.
B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
Raymond Roecker, assistant vice president and regional
manager for the mideastern region of Pinkerton , having
been employed by Pinkerton since September of 1962, was
in charge of the supervision of all offices of Pinkerton in
Virginia , the eastern part of West Virginia, all of Mary-
land, Pennsylvania, Delaware , and New Jersey . Amstar
has been a client of Pinkerton since October 1960 and,
according to Roecker , they "have had the relationship of a
contractor and a client providing security services." He
testified that he personally had had no relationship with
Amstar as of September 1, 1960 , that Amstar and
Pinkerton entered into a contract for security services
which was modified by letter agreement on April 26, 1972,
in respect to the rate payable to the contractor for services.
This was signed by a Mr. Hawkins, the local office
manager . Roecker testified that from May 1963 through
the early part of 1968 , when Hawkins took over as manager
in Baltimore he on occasion visited with officials of clients
and endeavored to see that the guards were appropriately
uniformed and also to determine whether they had any
grievances . He further related that Pinkerton had no
relationship whatever with the Steamship Trade Associa-
tion of Baltimore and was not a member of that
organization , and so far as he knew, Pinkerton had given
no authority to the association to negotiate contracts in its
behalf . Roecker testified that , to his knowledge, the Union
had never requested that Pinkerton recognize it as the
collective-bargaining agent for the guards employed at
Amstar . Further, he related that no guard employed by
Pinkerton at Amstar or elsewhere had ever claimed to be a
member of the Respondent Union. There are normally
eight full-time guards and about four part-time guards.
Guards are assigned directly from the Baltimore office of
Pinkerton 's and , according to this witness, Amstar has no
responsibility in this area.
Amstar became a member of the Association in 1937 and
has continued its membership, apparently because it
utilizes hourly labor represented by the ILA to unload
vessels carrying bulk sugar to the refinery . Pinkerton is not
now and never has been a member of the Association.
While the Association and the Respondent have had a
bargaining relationship since approximately the mid-50s,
no contract negotiated between the Respondent and the
Association has ever been applied to any employee
working at the Amstar facility. At no time did the
Respondent , prior to February 1972, claim that any
employee working at Amstar was covered by its collective-
bargaining agreement with the Association . It was not until
February 1972, when a new group of individuals assumed
the positions of officers of the Association , that representa-
tives of Amstar first heard of the existence of the
Respondent.
The Association and the Respondent , in January 1970,
entered into a 2-year agreement expiring December 31,
1972, which contained a union -security clause . On Febru-
ary 4, 1972, the Respondent filed a grievance with the
Association alleging that Amstar employed nonunion
guards in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement.
The Association referred the grievance to Amstar and the
representative of the latter sent a letter of response dated
February 17 in which he made clear to the Association that
he had never authorized the Association to negotiate on
behalf of Amstar with respect to any guards employed by it
and that it would be an unfair labor practice for either
party to the contract, or Amstar, to extend the contract
with its union-security provision to employees who were
not previously covered by the contract . On March 23, the
Association 's Trade Practice Committee reviewed the
grievance of the Respondent , found that the Respondent
was attempting to expand its area of jurisdiction , and ruled
that no contract violation had occurred. Following this, the
Respondent invoked arbitration to compel Amstar to
apply the contract to the Pinkerton employees.
On June 20 and July 17, arbitration hearings were held
before Judge Ruben Oppenheimer . Representatives of the
Association and Amstar and the Respondent were present
at the hearing. Pinkerton was not a party to such
proceeding , nor was it provided with either formal or
informal notice. At the arbitration hearing, the issue of
whether or not Amstar was bound by any contract
negotiated between the Association and the Respondent
was not raised because of the Association 's request to
Amstar that it not be made part of the proceeding. In
substance, the hearing concerned itself primarily with
Respondent 's contention that the work performed by the
Pinkerton guards at Amstar 's facility came within the
express jurisdictional provisions of the contract. Amstar
and the Association contended that the work performed by
the Pinkerton guards was not covered by the jurisdictional
paragraphs of the contract ; that past practice governed;
and that the Respondent , by its past conduct, had
recognized that it did not have jurisdiction . Under date of
October 22 , the arbitrator handed down his award in which
he concluded that Amstar was in violation of the
agreement.
Pursuant to a request for interpretation of the award by
Amstar on October 17 , the arbitrator in a letter dated
WATERFRONT GUARD ASSOC., LOCAL 1852
November 20, confirmed his ruling which "requires that all
nine guards employed at Amstar's Baltimore facility must
become and remain members of the Waterfront Guard
Association."
Throughout October and November 1972, and continu-
ing to the present, the Respondent has made efforts to
enforce the arbitrator's award. On or about October 5, Mr.
Fortune, managing director of the Association, telephoned
Henry Kief, a representative of Amstar, and informed him
that the Respondent wanted Amstar to commence hiring
members of the Respondent. Following that, by letter
dated October 13, Attorney Davis, on behalf of Respon-
dent, made a further demand that the guard work at the
Amstar facility be performed by Respondent's members.
The newly elected financial secretary of the Respondent,
Thomas, informed Kief that if Amstar did not begin hiring
members of the Respondent immediately that the Respon-
dent would seek retroactive pay from October 2, the date
of the arbitration award. Thomas called a second time on
November 16, and in this conversation requested a meeting
with Kief so that they could discuss the hiring of members
of the Respondent. Thomas further indicated to Kief that
Amstar could keep the guards it then had but that the
guards would be required to join the Union. A third call by
Thomas to Kief was made on November 17, in which
Thomas told Kief that the arbitrator had not changed his
mind and Thomas again insisted that Amstar hire
members of the Respondent. Finally, on November 20,
Thomas called Kief the fourth time and again inquired as
to when Amstar was going to do something with respect to
hiring members of the Respondent and mentioned that the
retroactive pay was approximately $10,000. Upon Amstar's
refusal to comply with the arbitration award, the Respon-
dent brought suit in Federal court to enforce the award.
This was pending at the time of the hearing herein.
The record is clear that Thomas never claimed to
represent any of the Pinkerton guards. Thus, he testified as
follows:
Q. (by Mr . Balsamo) Do you claim to represent
any of the Pinkerton guards?
A. No.
Q. What guards other than the Pinkerton guards
are employed at the Amstar facility that you claim to
represent?
A. There are none others right now except Pinker-
ton so I don't plan to represent any of them there now
Q. (by Mr. Balsamo) Let's reiterate one more time,
you state that you don't claim to represent the
Pinkerton guards at Amstar?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, or back in 1972 either?
A. At any time.
C. Discussion and Conclusions
Happily, there is little or no disagreement on the facts
with respect to the violations alleged in the complaint.
Moreover, it is apparent that from February 4, 1972, until
515
the present time, the Respondent has attempted to apply
the union-security provisions of its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Association to the employees of an
employer who have never selected the Respondent as a
collective-bargaining representative . Indeed , Financial
Secretary Thomas conceded that the Respondent does not
represent any of the guards employed at the Amstar
facility; moreover, he conceded that he informed Amstar
that the guards would have to become members of the
Union. Finally, he buttressed this demand by informing
Mr. Kief that if Amstar did not comply, the Respondent
would seek retroactive pay from October 2. Counsel for the
General Counsel, accordingly, argues that from the time
"Respondent filed its grievance on February 4, 1972,
Respondent has set upon a course designed to coerce
Amstar into interfering with the labor relations of another
employer, Pinkerton, and Section 7 rights of the Pinkerton
guards. This case represents 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) viola-
tions in their most flagrant form." Counsel for the General
Counsel submits that there are three separate bases, any
one of which, standing alone, is sufficient to establish that
the Respondent violated the Act. In the first place, he
points out that the Pinkerton guards are not part of any
multi-employer bargaining unit. Accordingly, he argues
that the Respondent, in demanding that the Pinkerton
employees be covered by the Association-Union contract,
the Respondent is in effect demanding that Pinkerton's
employees become union members as a condition of
employment in violation of the foregoing sections of the
Act. In the second place, counsel for the General Counsel
points to the fact that Amstar had never manifested an
unequivocal intent to be bound in collective-bargaining
negotiations between the Association and the Respondent.
Finally, he argues that neither the Association, nor the
Respondent, nor Amstar for that matter, "has any legal
right to include Pinkerton employees as part of a multi-
employer contract unit in the event it is found that Amstar
is bound by the Association's contract with Respondent.
The Board has held that an employer violates Section
8(a)(2) and the Union 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
when they include employees as part of the multi-employer
bargaining unit without the employees' consent. The
evidence is abundantly clear that the Pinkerton employees
have never been afforded an opportunity to choose or
reject a particular union in any form of bargaining unit. To
impose a union-secunty clause on such employees even
under color of an arbitration award is totally inconsistent
with the rights guaranteed to employees under the Act." 1
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that, in effect,
the arbitrator's award is analogous to a unit clarification
proceeding before the Board, but that in such proceedings
the Board has established the principle that when the
parties to a contract have for long periods of time excluded
certain employees from contract coverage, it raises a
question of representation that can best be resolved by an
election, rather than by a petition to clarify unit. He asserts
that the arbitrator has in effect made a unit clarification
decision by including the guards at the Amstar facility,
despite the fact that the Association and Respondent have
excluded these employees for almost 20 years. In sub-
1 Footnotes omitted
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stance, counsel asserts that "Respondent's insistent de-
mands that Amstar comply with the arbitrator's award can
only be honored by Amstar if it violates Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act."
Counsel for the General Counsel, in his brief, states that
in the defenses raised by the Respondent it contends "that
its actions are justifiable because it is only demanding
compliance with an arbitral award," and that it "asserts
that it has never requested that the Pinkerton guards
become part of the bargaining unit; its only contention
being that under the contract Amstar had no right to
subcontract the work to Pinkerton." Counsel for the
General Counsel labels the first defense as "weak and
specious," because in order to sustain that position ..It must
be shown that the arbitrator's award is valid and not in
irreconcilable conflict with the Act." It is his position that
the "arbitrator's award is repugnant to the purposes and
policies of the Act," and in support thereof points out that
"a necessary party, Pinkerton, was not a party to the
proceeding" and was not provided with either official or
unofficial notice of the proceeding. He properly points out
that Pinkerton had a direct and vital interest in that
proceeding, inasmuch as the Respondent was attempting
to apply its contract to the employees of Pinkerton, an
employer who had never entered into that contract. In
support of his position, counsel for the General Counsel
cites White Front San Francisco, Inc., 203 NLRB No. 79,
where the Board held that it would not defer to an
arbitrator's award because the party affected by the award
was not a party to the proceeding and that, therefore, the
arbitration did not meet the standards set forth in Spielberg
Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080. In addition, he
points out that crucial issues were not even considered by
the arbitrator, i.e., he never considered the question of
whether or not Amstar had ever manifested an unequivocal
intent to be bound by the agreement the arbitrator was
interpreting, or whether or not Amstar and Pinkerton
could properly be considered point employers under the
Act. Finally, counsel for the General Counsel contends
that the arbitrator's award is contrary to established Board
and court decisions citing Radio Television Technical
School, Inc., 199 NLRB 579, and Combustion Engineering,
Inc., 195 NLRB 909, where the Board refused to defer to
an arbitrator's conclusion "that the employees of a facility
newly established by the employer had been accreted to
the existed bargaining unit and thus covered by the
bargaining agreement."
With regard to the Respondent's second defense,
namely, that it was only objecting to Amstar's subcontract-
ing the guard work to the Pinkerton agency, counsel for the
General Counsel suggests that the letter from the Respon-
dent's attorney to the Association and Amstar "clearly
2 Counsel for Amstar points out that Mr Fortune, managing director of
the Association , testified that up until the instant arbitration award, it was
the position of the Association that its contract with Respondent did not
cover the guard work performed at Amstar 's Baltimore refinery, a fact
which is consistent with the further fact that Amstar was never asked to post
the $500 bond which is required of all Association members covered by the
labor agreement with the Respondent
3 See also International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, and Local 92 (Bigge Drayage Company), 197
NLRB 281, where the Board affirmed the following findings of the Trial
Examiner.
establishes that Respondent was demanding full compli-
ance with the arbitral award. Moreover, Mr. Kief and Mr.
Thomas both testified that the Respondent was demanding
that the guards at the Amstar facility should become
members of the Union in compliance with the award of the
arbitrator, a demand which if complied with would result
in the inclusion of the Pinkerton employees in the
multiemployer bargaining unit.
Concerning the contention that Amstar did not have the
right to subcontract the work, the evidence clearly
establishes that since the Respondent and the Association
began their bargaining relationship sometime in the mid-
1950's until February 10, the Union never claimed the right
to represent the employees who performed the guard work
at the Amstar facility.2
Counsel for the Respondent argues that the Board
should defer to the arbitrator's award, approved by the
court and, accordingly, dismiss the complaint. He asserts
that this case is squarely within the Board's analysis in
Spielberg, and that in order to defer to the award it is not
necessary to apply Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and
Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB 837.
In Spielberg, the Board enunciated certain tests that must
be met before it will recognize the validity of an arbitration
award. These are: (a) the proceedings must have been fair
and regular; (b) all parties must have agreed to be bound;
and (c) the decision of the arbitrator must not be clearly
repugnant to the Act.
In the present proceeding, Pinkerton, although a neces-
sary party, was not in fact a party to the proceeding and
was not provided with either official or unofficial notice of
the proceeding. It seems plain that Pinkerton had a direct
and vital interest in that proceeding because what the
Respondent was attempting to do was to apply its contract
to Pinkerton's employees, an employer who had never
entered into the contract. Plainly, the arbitrator's award
directly affects the Pinkerton employees because it requires
the nine guards to become and remain members of the
Union. Moreover, the arbitrator never considered the
question of whether or not Amstar had ever manifested an
unequivocal intent to be bound by the agreement that he
was interpreting or whether Amstar and Pinkerton could
be considered joint employers under the Act. Finally, in
my view the arbitrator's award is contrary to established
Board and court decisions, as pointed out by counsel for
the General Counsel in his brief.
I conclude, substantially for the reasons set forth by
counsel for the General Counsel in his brief, that in the
present case it would be inappropriate to defer to the
arbitrator's award because that award is repugnant to the
policies and the purposes of the Act.3
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I find that
Respondent , conceding the jurisdiction of the Board , under Section
10(a), asserts the policy or promoting industrial peace and stability
through collective bargaining obliges the Trial Examiner to defer to the
grievance-arbitration procedures which the parties have voluntarily
established I do not agree.
In Collyer the Board found the dispute , in an alleged failure to bargain
case involving unilateral changes in an existing contract between the
parties, was essentially a dispute over the terms and meaning of the
contract
WATERFRONT GUARD ASSOC., LOCAL 1852 517
Amstar was not bound by the contract between the
Association and the Respondent Union with respect to the
representation of the Pinkerton guards. Moreover, it is
plain that Pinkerton, not a party to the agreement, and
which had not delegated to Amstar any right to speak for
its guard employees in matters of labor relations and
collective bargaining, was not bound. I find that Respon-
dent's attempts to cause Amstar to comply with the award
of the arbitrator constitutes a violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act. Accordingly, I shall issue
an appropriate recommended Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amstar Corporation is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Steamship Trader Association of Baltimore, Inc., is
an association of employers which employ members of the
Respondent, which exists, in part, for the purposes of
engaging in collective bargaining in behalf of its members
with various labor organizations, including the Respon-
dent.
3. Amstar, although a member of the Association, has
at no time material herein delegated any authority to the
Association to represent it in negotiations with the
Respondent with respect to the wages, hours, and condi-
tions of employment of employees employed by Pinkerton
to perform guard services at the Respondent's facility in
Baltimore.
4. Waterfront Guard Association is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
5. By demanding that Amstar recognize the Respon-
dent as the collective-bargaining representative of the
guards employed by Pinkerton to perform the guard
services at Amstar's refinery, although said employees have
at no time selected Respondent as a collective-bargaining
representative, the Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices as defined in Section
8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Waterfront Guard Association, its officers, agents,
successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from demanding that Pinkerton,
Amstar, or the Association enter into a collective-bargain-
ing agreement covering the guard employees of Pinkerton
at the Amstar facility unless and until such employees have
selected the Respondent as their collective-bargaining
representative in a Board-conducted election or by other
valid means.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its respective business offices and meeting
halls, if any, within the geographical area where Pinkerton
operates, i.e., Virginia, the eastern part of West Virginia,
and the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and
New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 5, shall , after being duly
signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 5
sufficient copies of said notice for posting by Pinkerton,
Amstar, and the Association where notices to employees,
and members of the Association, are customarily posted, if
any of said parties are willing to do so.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing , within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless , on or before 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, the
Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director that it
will comply with the foregoing recommended Order, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring
that Respondent take the aforesaid action.
I find Collyer inapposite. Bigge, the charging party herein, has never
been a party to the contract in question I find no merit in this
contention
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
5 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT demand that Pinkerton, Amstar, or the
Association enter into any contract requiring that
guard employees employed by Pinkerton be covered by
the collective-bargaining agreement Respondent has
with members of the Association concerning the
employment of guards and their wages, terms, and
conditions of employment , unless and until the guard
employees of Pinkerton have freely selected us to be
their collective-bargaining representative in a Board-
conducted election or by other valid procedures.
518
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WATERFRONT GUARD
ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1852,
INDEPENDENT WATCHMEN'S
ASSOCIATION OF THE PORT
OF BALTIMORE
(Labor Organization)
(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 Rm. 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore,
Maryland 21201 , Telephone 301-962-2772.