St. Regis Paper Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD St. Regis Paper Company and District No. 99, Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case I-CA-12715 December 11, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPtHY On July 10, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Hen- ry L. Jalette issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and the General Counsel filed limited requests for clarifi- cation and a brief supporting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thuity in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the First Machias Lake garage facility constituted an accretion to the certified contractual unit. The Administrative Law Judge, therefore, cor- rectly found that Respondent had the statutory duty to recognize and bargain with the Union as the col- lective-bargaining representative for all of Respop- dent's mechanics located at both the Bucksport and First Machias Lake facilities. The record also evidences that, in February 1977, Respondent formulated a new mechanical harvesting maintenance crew that worked out of a service truck. The crew was composed of former First l.ake me- chanic Shirland, newly hired mechanic Nelson, and former First Lake mechanic Al Wood. who was ap- pointed their immediate supervisor. T he General Counsel contends that the unit found appropriate by the Administrative Law Judge should be clarified to include the two nonsupervisory mechanics on the harvesting maintenance crew. We agree. The record indicates that Respondent's entire Woodland Division's mechanical operations consists of the mechanics from Bucksport, First l.ake, and the harvesting maintenance crew. All of the Wood- land Division's mechanics, furthermore, are under the overall supervision of Lloyd Huggins, the mainte- nance manager. It is also apparent that the Hlarvest- ing maintenance mechanics perform the same basic functions and work in the same general areas as the mechanics from Bucksport and First Lake. We there- fore find that the appropriate unit embraces the two nonsupervisory mechanics on the harvesting mainte- nance crew. In light of this finding, Respondent's statutory duty to recognize and bargain with the Union extends to the mechanics on the harvesting maintenance crew as well. AM-.END).D REMED)Y We also adopt the Administrative Law Judge's rec- ommendation that Respondent be ordered, upon re- quest, to honor the collective-bargaining agreement and to give it retroactive effect with respect to the unit employees assigned to the First Machias Lake garage facility, including but not limited to wages, benefits, and seniority. While it is not apparent whether any employees have suffered monetary loss in consequence of Respondent's failure to honor the contract with respect to the First Machias Lake ga- rage employees, as a precautionary measure we shall order Respondent to make employees whole for any such loss. Any backpay is to be computed as pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Comnpanv, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as set forth in Florida Steel Cor- poration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). The Administrative Law Judge's recommended order and no'ice are accordingly modified below.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, St. Regis Paper Company, Bucksport, Maine, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following paragraphs for para- graph 2(c) and reletter the present paragraph accord- ingly. "(c) Upon request, honor the collective-bargain- ing agreement and give it retroactive effect with re- spect to the unit emplhrieees assigned to the First Machias Lake garage facility, and make the unit em- a i also, adopt the Adniinlstralilie la.', Judge's reccmmendatlon that Rcrponlde nt he irdicred te;lse and desist frirn unlawfulls refusing to pI"LeS rTelan.ites o[ I irst I ike ga;age meh.anies. Iis notice inadvertentlk otilt s u1 x it reference It) this Io!;latio)n Ihls over:ight is corrected in the at- tlchied notice that Ii substituted for that of the Administrallve Law Judge In ; actordarnct wilh the (,eneral ( ouns.ls request. we shall also require lhat Respondenl full\ retiiburse the t n:on for anv dues moneys lost as a result of Respondent's iolations of the Act, plus interest. 688 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY ployees whole for any loss they have suffered by rea- son of Respondent's failure to honor the aforesaid contract as to the First Machias Lake mechanics in the manner set forth in the Amended Remedy." "(d) Reimburse the Union for any dues moneys lost as a result of its 8(a)(5) and independent 8(a)(1) violations, plus interest as set forth in thie Amended Remedy." 2. At the beginning of the last paragraph, add let- ter "(f)." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAI. LABOR R IATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain our employees from or coerce them into withdrawing their membership from District No. 99, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO, by attempting to transfer them from First Machias Lake garage facility to the Bucksport, Maine, garage. WE WILL NOT transfer employees from First Machias Lake to Bucksport because of their membership in District No. 99, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace work- ers, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with District No. 99, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL CIO, as the exclusive representative of all em- ployees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WIt.L. upon request, transfer Ervin Goo- gins and Wayne Haslam to the First Machias Lake garage facility. WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain with District No. 99, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below: All employees employed at the Bucksport. Maine, garage facility, all mechanics at the First Machias Lake garage facility, and all mechanics on the mechanical harvesting maintenance crew, exclusive of all office cleri- cal employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. WE wiL.i. upon request, honor the collective- bargaining agreement with District No. 99, In- ternational Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers. AFL CIO, with regard to the unit employees employed at the First Machias Lake garage facility and give it retroactive ef- fect, and wE WILL. if requested, process griev- ances arising from our obligation to do so. WL w.iil make the unit employees whole, with interest, for any loss they have suffered by rea- son of our failure to honor the contract as to the First Lake mechanics. WF WiL.i fully reimburse tlihe Union with any dues moneys lost as a result of our violations of the Act, plus interest. ST RFGIS PAPER COMPANY DECISION ST1E[MFNt 1F rHE CASE HENRsI L JALErTE. Administrative Law Judge: This pro- ceeding was initiated by a charge filed by the above-named Union on February 7, 1977,1 which charge was amended on April 4. Pursuant thereto, complaint issued on April 6, alleging that the above-named Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. On July 8, the com- plaint was amended. On July 18 and 19, hearing was held in Bangor, Maine. Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs of the par- ties, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FA(I I THE FACTS Respondent is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture. sale, and distribution of pulp paper, paperboard packaging, construction, and related products in several states, includ- ing the State of Maine.' The facilities involved herein are known as the northern timberland division or woodlands division, with headquarters at Bucksport, Maine, where Respondent operates a paper mill which is part of another division known as the printing and packaging papers divi- sion. On the same premises as the mill is a garage facility which is part of the woodlands division and services the rolling stock (trucks, small tractors, log haulers) of the I Unless olherwise indicated. all dates are in 1977 -General ('ounsel's unopposed motion to correct transcript is herebh granted Jurisdiction is not in issue Respondent admits, and I find, that It meets the Bo a rd'l direcl inflow and outflow s lndards for Ihe asscertion of jurisdic- tlon. 689 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD woodlands division and of the paper mill. In 1958, the Union was certified as exclusive bargaining representative of "all automobile mechanics located at the Woodlands garage, Bucksport, Maine." At the time, all the unit em- ployees wer, employed and working out of the Bucksport garage. These employees are essentially mechanics who service Respondent's rolling stock throughout the thou- sands of acres of timberland owned by Respondent in the woodlands division and, when not working at Bucksport, their duties require them to travel to logging operations of Respondent scattered throughout the division. In November or December 1974, Respondent opened a garage facility at First Machias Lake (hereinafter referred to as First Lake). Prior thereto, Respondent was operating a facility at Colson Field, but upon opening First Lake it assigned the two mechanics working at and out of Colson Field to First Lake. These two mechanics, Alton Norton and Ervin Googins, were both union members whose dues were being checked off by Respondent. Norton had initial- ly worked at and out of Bucksport. and he testified that Googins was hired in Bucksport. Googins may also have worked there before being assigned to Colson Field and First Lake, but the record is not clear on the matter. On June 13, one Alfred Wood began working at First Lake. Whether or not he had been working at Bucksport earlier is not shown in the record, but he was also a member of the Union on checkoff. Since certification, the Union and Respondent have been parties to a series of collective-bargaining agreements. Section 1. Parties, of these successive agreements provided: "This agreement is between the St. Regis Paper Company and the International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1821, covering the employees in the Woodlands garage located at Bucksport, Maine." In the negotiations for a new contract in June 1975 the Union sought to obtain a recognition agreement covering the First Lake employees. Respondent refused to sign the recognition agreement pro- posed by the Union, but on June 13, 1975, to resolve an impasse on a new agreement, Respondent advised the Union by letter as follows: In an attempt to clarify the Company's position re- garding the union status of the mechanics at First Lake location, the Company does recognize that the following three timberlands employees are represented by Lodge No. 1821: Ervin Googins, Alton Norton, Alfred Wood. At the time of this letter, Googins, Norton and Wood were the only mechanics at the First Lake facility. Later in June, mechanic Wayne Haslam, a union mem- ber who had worked at and out of both Bucksport and Colson Field, was assigned from Bucksport to the First Lake facility. In September 1975, Maurice Littlefield was hired as a mechanic and he worked out of First Lake until March 15, 1976, when he was assigned to work out of Bucksport. Littlefield was a union member on dues check- off and had been such while employed at First Lake. In 1976, three other mechanics were hired apparently to work out of First Lake: Parker, February 16, 1976; Shir- land, March 8, 1976; and Lagassie, September 27, 1976. They were interviewed at Bucksport and the hiring deci- sion was made by Deabay and Lloyd Huggins, who is manager of maintenance and whose office is at Bucksport. In the negotiations in 1976, the Union proposed chang- ing section I, Parties, to specify that the agreement covered the employees in all Woodlands garages, and deleting the phrase "located at Bucksport, Maine." Respondent reject- ed the proposal, but its regional manager, Jack Hamilton, reminded the Union's business representative that the June 1975 letter was still in effect. The June 1976 agreement which the parties eventually agreed to provided, inter alia, for a journeyman plus rate and a change in lunch breaks from 30 minutes off the clock to 20 minutes on the clock. Haslam and Wood received the journeyman plus benefits, but according to Allen Deabay, personnel manager, it was based on a management deci- sion to extend the benefits to all mechanics in the division and not because of a contractual obligation. Mechanics at First Lake also began to take a 20-m;inute lunch on the clock until November 1976, when Deabay told them they were not to do so. Mechanics Norton and Wood filed a grievance over the matter, and on December 6, 1976, Dea- bay advised the Union that they were not entitled to the benefits because the contract did not cover First Lake. Thereafter, the Union requested arbitration and Respon- dent refused on the same ground. On September 7, two mechanics working out of Bucks- port were terminated, and Deabay testified that in view of the vacancies thus created it was decided to transfer union members from First Lake to Bucksport. Googins and Wood were picked to move, but Deabay approached Goo- gins first, and he decided to go back to Bucksport. Since Haslam traveled with Googins, he volunteered to do like- wise. In January or February 1977, Norton met with Deabay, Cope, and Huggins in Bucksport. Cope told him of an opening in Bucksport that would be filled with a union mechanic and reminded Norton that he was the only one left at First Lake. Norton told Cope he would not transfer, that he would leave the Union or transfer from the garage. Shortly thereafter, Norton resigned from the Union. He did not transfer and remained a mechanic until June, when he became a truckdriver. Norton testified, "I dropped out of the Union because mainly I did not want to go to Bucks- port." 11. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The 8(a)(3) Allegations The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the transfers of Googins and Haslam described above. The record supports the allega- tion. Deabay's own testimony reveals that the selection of mechanics from First Lake to Bucksport to fill vacancies was based on the fact that Googins and Haslam were members of the Union. Respondent thereby violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The complaint alleges that Respondent attempted to transfer Alton Norton from First Lake to Bucksport be- cause of his union membership and required Norton to resign his membership as a condition of remaining at First 690 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY Lake. The record supports the allegation. Again there was a vacancy in Bucksport, and, in furtherance of the policy earlier adopted to transfer union mechanics, Respondent attempted to transfer Norton as the only union mechanic still employed at First Lake. Inasmuch as Norton refused to transfer, there is no basis for an 8(a)(3) finding; how- ever, the attempt to do so by telling him of the vacancy and reminding him that he was the only union member left at First Lake constituted restraint and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. As to Norton's resignation from membership, there is no evidence that Respondent required him to resign by ex- press statements; however, his resignation was clearly at- tributable to Respondent's unlawful attempt to transfer him and in that sense was required by Respondent. Re- spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The 8(a)(5) Allegation The complaint alleges that all garage employees em- ployed by Respondent at its woodlands division, Bucks- port, Maine, and its First Machias Lake, Maine, garage facilities constitute a union appropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, that at all times material herein the Union has been the representative for purposes of collective-bargaining majority of the employees in such unit, that at all times since August 7, 1976, the Union has requested and is re- questing Respondent to bargain collectively with respect to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees in such unit, and that since on or about late October or early November 1976, Respondent has refused to recognize and or bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative with respect to those gaiage employees em- ployed by Respondent at its First Lake facility, has refused to apply the terms and provisions of the collective-bargain- ing agreement entered into by the Union and Respondent in June 1976, and has refused to process grievances arising out of its refusal to apply the terms and provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement to mechanics employed at First Lake. The basic issue presented by the 8(a)(5) allegation herein is whether or not the First Lake facility constituted an ac- cretion to the certified unit. If it did, Respondent violated Section 8(a)() and (5) of the Act by refusing to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of the mechanics employed at its First Lake garage facility and by refusing to apply the terms and conditions of the June 1976 collec- tive-bargaining agreement to such employees and refusing to process grievances arising out of such refusal. In The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Family Savings Center), 140 NLRB 1011, 1021 (1963), the Board stated: Whether or not a particular operation constitutes an accretion or a separate unit turns, of course, on the entire congeries of facts in each case. In determining that a newly established facility or operation is an ac- cretion to an existing unit, the Board has given weight to a variety of factors, such as integration of the oper- ations; centralization of managerial and administra- tive control; geographic proximity; similarity of work- ing conditions, skills, and functions; common control over labor relations; collective-bargaining history; and interchangeability of employees. Obviously, cases in which all of these, or only these, positive accretion factors are present are rare. For, the normal situation present a variety of elements, some militating toward and some against accretion, so that a balancing of fac- tors is necessary. In my view, the "entire congeries of facts" in this case militates in favor of a finding that the First Lake facility constituted an accretion to the certified unit. The work per- formed by the mechanics working out of the First Lake garage facility is identical to the work performed by me- chanics working out of the Bucksport garage facility. This is so much so that. after the unlawful assignment from First Lake to Bucksport, Haslam and Googins worked in the same locations, including First Lake, that they had worked before. Moreover, the mechanics from Bucksport and First Lake work together in various locations in the woods, including the First Lake facility. Both the First Lake mechanics and the Bucksport mechanics are under the supervision of Lloyd Huggins, who is manager of main- tenance and whose office is at Bucksport. Prior to Novem- her 1976. the First Lake mechanics had no supervision other than through Huggins at the Bucksport office, and directions were received by radio. After the unfair labor practices herein alleged, one Richard Stanhope became a supervisor, but even then his authority was limited to direc- tion of the work force. All hiring and firing has been vested at Bucksport. Insofar as conditions of employment for the Bucksport and First Lake mechanics are concerned, until the events herein, they had been governed by the contract between Respondent and the Union, albeit the contract purported to cover Bucksport only. This fact is established by Re- spondent's letter of June 13, 1975; a memo dated July 15, 1975, indicating that Googins, Haslam, Norton, and Woods, then the only mechanics at First Lake, had re- ceived wage increases as per the garage contract; the fact that in the 1976 negotiations Respondent assured the Union of the continued viability of the June 13, 1975, let- ter; and the fact that in 1976, First Lake mechanics re- ceived raises as per the new union contract.4 Moreover. until the hiring of Shirland, Price, and Lagassie beginning and after February 1976, all First Lake mechanics were union members on dues checkoff, and under the proviso to Section 302(cX4) of the Act, Respondent could not lawful- ly deduct dues from the wages of its employees unless there was an underlying collective-bargaining agreement. In my judgment, the foregoing factors warrant a finding of accretion. In arguing against such a finding, Respondent does not dispute the facts recited above. It appears to con- tend that there can be no accretion because of the language of the 1958 certification and the language of the collective- bargaining agreements entered into ever since. The limita- 4 This last point is based on the adnuss.,on of [)eaba, that "transfer tick- ets" for (;oogins and Haslam bore notatilns that wage increases recei.ed in 1976 were because of "new union contract " 691 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of the certification is, of course, not dispositive as the conditions here in question arose after the certification. The fact that the scope of the collective-bargaining agree- ment has been limited in words to Bucksport is likewise not dispositive. At best, it is a reflection of the Union's inabili- ty to achieve through collective bargaining what it was en- titled to as a matter of law under the facts given. Even then, the Union achieved de facto recognition in 1975 by Respondent's June 13 letter. Although Respondent termed its action as an acknowledgment that the Union was the representative of only three specific employees, as these were the only mechanics away from Bucksport and as Re- spondent extended the contract benefits to them, as a mat- ter of law its action was one of recognition. In its brief, Respondent appears to argue that an accre- tion of First Lake to Bucksport is not warranted because there are other employees who work in various parts of the woods who also work at First Lake occasionally. How fre- quently they work at First Lake, what kind of work they do, and under whose supervision they are is not clear. Among the classifications of employees who Respondent apparently has reference to are laborers, truckdrivers, and grader, skidder, and dozer operators. These are obviously not mechanics, even though some drivers may do some mechanical work on their equipment. Respondent has a mechanical harvesting maintenance crew consisting of three individuals: Alfred Wood, supervisor of the crew and formerly a mechanic at First Lake, mechanic Nelson, and mechanic Shirland, who had formerly been at First Lake. This crew works out of a service truck. The fact that Re- spondent has these two mechanics, in addition to those at First Lake and Bucksport, does not warrant a refusal to accrete First Lake to Bucksport where the factors other- wise support accretion. Apart from that, it is noteworthy that this mechanical crew is made up of two individuals formerly at First Lake and that it was formed since the events giving rise to this proceeding. In the circumstances, plus the evidence that Respondent sought to shape the unit by transferring employees from First Lake to Bucksport, the existence of the mechanical crew ought not be accord- ed weight. On October 29 and 30, 1975, in Case I-RC-13944, an election was held in a unit of "all truckdrivers, mechanics, skidder operators, woodcutters, sealers, and equipment op- erators employed by the Employer at its Northern Timber- land Division, Maine Region, excluding employees cov- ered by labor agreements...." The Union lost this election. In brief, Respondent asserts that 27 mechanics were included on the eligibility list in that election who also performed work at the Bucksport and First Lake garages. From this, Respondent appears to argue either that it would be inapporpriate to accrete First Lake only, or that accretion is precluded by the unit determination In that case. I find no merit in such arguments. The assertion that 27 individuals who voted in the elec- tion in Case 1-RC-13944 were mechanics is not supported by any record evidence. Of the 27 names set forth in Re- spondent's brief, only 2 are shown to be mechanics; Mau- rice Littlefield who was a union member, and Richard Stanhope who became a supervisor in November 1976. Moreover,the assertion is belied by the testimony of Per- sonnel Manager Deabay that, other than the 3 individuals in the mechanical crew referred to above, Respondent em- ployed no mechanics at any location other than First Lake and Bucksport. As to the matter of the election in Case I-RC-13944, as there is no indication that the issue of the placement of mechanics was litigated, I deem that prior proceeding to be no bar to the finding herein made. Finally, there is the argument that the First Lake facility is no more permanent than any other garage location of Respondent's woodland operations, with the exception of Bucksport. Inasmuch as the accretion herein deemed ap- propriate joins into one unit essentially all Respondent's mechanics working under the same supervision and doing the same work, the lack of permanency of the First Lake garage is immaterial. The fact of the matter is, under the facts herein, the Union had the right to be recognized for all the mechanics regardless of the location of the garage. IIl. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with its operations described above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5), of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take appropriate and affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In particular, as I have found that mechanics Ervin Googins and Wayne Haslam were transferred from First Lake to Bucksport because of their union membership in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, I shall recormmend that if they, or either of them, request to be returned to First Lake the Respondent return them. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. St. Regis Paper Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. District No. 99, International Association of Machin- ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All garage employees of Respondent at its woodlands division, Bucksport, Maine, and its First Machias Lake, Maine, garage facilities, exclusive of all office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, and all supervis- ors, as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of those of Re- spondent's mechanics located at its First Machias Lake ga- 692 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY rage facility, by refusing to apply the terms and conditions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union to such mechanics, and by refusing to process grievances aris- ing out of its failure to do so. Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By transferring employees from its First Machias Lake garage facility to its Bucksport garage because of their membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. By restraining and coercing employees into withdraw- ing from membership in the Union, Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aXl) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER 5 The Respondent, St. Regis Paper Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Restraining or coercing employees into withdrawing from membership in District No. 99, International Associ- ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL CIO, by attempting to transfer employees from one job location to another. (b) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, District No. 99, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or- ganization of its employees, by transferring employees be- cause of their membership in such labor organization. or 'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.41 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Lahor 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 beconme its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall he deemed waived for all purposes otherwise discriminating in regard their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment of its employees. (c) Refusing to recognize District No. 99. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL CIO,(). as the statutory representative of Respondent's em- ploNees at its First Machias Lake garage facility (d) Refusing to apply the terms and conditions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union to its First Machias lake garage mechanics and refusing to process grievances arising out of its failure to do so. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of tights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Fake the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, return Ervin Googins and Wayne Ha- slam to the First Machias Lake garage facility. (b) Upon request, bargain with the Union with respect to the unit employees assigned to the First Machias Lake garage facility as part of the appropriate unit. (c) Upon request, honor the collective-bargaining agree- ment and give it retroactive effect with respect to the unit employees assigned to the First Machias Lake garage facil- itv. (d) Post at its facilities at Bucksport. Maine, and at the First Machias Lake garage copies of the notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by a duly authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily displayed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Notify the Regional Director for Region I. in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment iof a U nited States ourt of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National l.ahor Relatons Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the tInited States Court of kAppeals Enforcing an Order of the National I.ahrb Relations Board" 693