Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corp.

SATILLA RURAL ELECTRIC. MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION 387 any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Clement White and Dallas Lazard immediate and full reinstatement to their former or a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of District 50, United Mine Workers of America , or any other labor organization. NIAGARA CHEMICAL DIVISION, F.M,C. CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days during the height of the season, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building, 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone Number, 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-4854. May 28, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On March 2, 1962, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this proceed- ing, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. 137 NLRB No. 45. 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Section 151, et seq., herein called the Act, was heard pursuant to notice before Trial Examiner Best at Waycross, Georgia, on January 10 and 11, 1962, with all parties represented. Complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on December 6, 1961, was based upon a charge filed on November 20, 1961, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The principal issue raised by the pleadings and litigated at the hearing was whether the Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation, herein called the Respondent, on and after May 20, 1961, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the duly certified representative of all employees in the appropriate unit. Written briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent have been given due consideration. From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation was organized and exists under the laws of the State of Georgia, maintaining its principal office and place of busi- ness at Alma, Georgia, where it is engaged in the distribution of electrical energy. During the past calendar year Respondent purchased and received supplies and ma- terials valued in excess of $5,000 from outside the State of Georgia, and during the same period received gross revenues in excess of $250,000. I find, therefore, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing in whole or part for the pur- pose of representing employees in dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rate of pay, hours of employment, and conditions of work. On February 24, 1961, in Case No. 10-RC-4507 ( not published in NLRB volumes), the Union was duly certified ( after election ) as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit consisting of: All hourly paid employees of the Employer including electricians, linemen, apprentices, helpers, groundmen , truckdrivers , warehousemen , mechanics, meter and transformer repairmen , materials clerks, janitors, and working foremen, but excluding office clerical and professional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Backgrounds On or about September 21, 1959, the Union filed a representation petition in Case No. 10-RC-4507, and thereupon the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election on January 13, 1960. Concurrently therewith the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against the Respondent in Cases Nos . 10-CA-4350 and 10-CA-4386 (129 NLRB 1084) by reason of which the election was postponed until such time as the Regional Director deemed that an election could appropriately be held upon disposition of the unfair labor practice charges. Upon a consolidated complaint therein the Trial Examiner and the Board found that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by soliciting employees to withdraw from membership in the International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO; but had not engaged in unfair labor practices by granting unilateral wage increases pursuant to its job classification , wage and salary reorgani- zation program in November 1959 and February 1960, following a pattern recom- mended by the National Rural Electrification Cooperative Association, of which Respondent is a member . Similar wage increases were granted by the Respondent to all employees retroactively effective to July 1, 1960, and January 1, 1961, based upon this same wage policy plan, which was officially adopted by its board of directors on or about February 13, 1960, to provide periodic wage increases at 6-month inter- ' See Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation, 129 NLRB 1084. SATILLA RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION 389 vals in each calendar year within a minimum and maximum wage schedule adopted by the Respondent. B. Negotiations with the Union Following a Board-conducted election on February 15, 1961 , the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, was duly certified on February 24, 1961, as the exclusive representative of all employees of the Respondent in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. In all negotiations thereafter , International Representative Arnold Madison repre- sented the Union as chief negotiator and was assisted by other union officials and members of the local employees committee. The Respondent was at all times repre- sented by General Manager R. Lehman Lanier and E. Kontz Bennett , attorney. All meetings were held at the Ware Hotel in Waycross , Georgia. The first meeting was held on March 25, 1961 , at which a written contract proposal was submitted by the Union ( General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2) and discussed at great length for 2 or 3 hours . At the second meeting on May 5, 1961 , the Respondent sub- mitted a written counterproposal ( General Counsel's Exhibit No 3). Neither of these proposals contained any definite provisions with respect to job clasisfications, wages, insurance program, or retirement benefits. At the third meeting on June 16, 1961, the Respondent modified its previous proposal by submitting a complete written contract proposal (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4), including well-defined articles on (I) union recognition , (II) rights of management, (III) employees' rights, (IV) lockouts, strikes, work stoppages, (V) space on bulletin boards, (VI) Shop Steward, Local Union officers, negotiating committee , (VII) checkoff, (VIII ) worktime and overtime, (IX) seniority, (X) wages, (XI) grievance and arbitration procedure, (XII) work rules, (XIII ) vacations , (XIV) holidays, (XV) sick leave, (XVI) physi- cal examination , (XVII ) paydays, (XVIII ) leave of absence, (XIX) group insurance and retirement coverage, and (XX ) term of agreement. In substance this contract proposal contained provisions that would insure the continuance of the existing situation with respect to seniority , job classifications, wages, work rules, group insur- ance, retirement benefits, working conditions, etc. At the fourth meeting before a commissioner of the Federal Mediation and Con- ciliation Service on July 6, 1961 , the Union proposed to accept Respondent's pro- posal except as follows: Satilla Elec Co-op & I B.E.W. Union final position accept company 's proposed contract except as follows: Term-July 1 , 1961 to July 1, 1962. Art. II . Mgmt Rts (top of page 2 ) omit "whether it be by contract or by its own employees " Art. VIII. Work time & Overtime replace 2nd & 3rd sentences with---Eight hours per day to be scheduled on 5 consecutive days Mondays thru Saturdays. Time and one half to be paid for all hours over 8 in any one day or over 40 in any week. All work performed on Sunday shall be paid for at time and one half. Art. IX, section . 2C. omit "disability or both" and increase time limit to 12 months in section D. Section 3 add-An employee will retain seniority in any department he has worked in Art. X. Change wage schedule for laborer to 1.15 min. 1 .35 max. Janitor & Maid $1.15 min. $1.25 max Increase all present wage 10¢ per hour effective 7/1/61 and another 10¢- 1/1/62. Guarantee 2 weeks salary as Xmas bonus. Art. XII. Exclude Group 1 work rules from contract May be printed in the back of the contract booklet. Art. X111. Add 12 days vacation after 10 years. Art XIV. Add-Nov. 11 a 6th holiday. Purportedly by reason of the foregoing objections and exceptions of the Union, the Respondent by letter of June 8, 1961 , withdrew all offers and proposals previously made by it on June 16 and July 6, 1961 , as follows: Re: The Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Local Union Num- ber 2098. Mr. JOHN B. SMITH, 1009 Dupont Avenue, Winter Park, Florida. DEAR SIR : Following the bargaining session which was held at the Ware Hotel in Waycross, Georgia, on Thursday, July 6, 1961 , Mr. Lehman Lanier, 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Manager, and Mr. E . Kontz Bennett, the Attorney, constituting the au- thorized team from the Board of Directors of The Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation, reported to me as President that when the complete agreement which was submitted to the Union as the Co -op's proposal, that further detailed objections were made to the document. A conference with the Co-op team was promptly held on Friday, July 7, 1961 , and the further detailed objections gone over , item by item, with me. These items were the same that were given to Mr. Bennett, the Co-op's At- torney, in writing, at the conclusion of the Thursday session , and so that there will be no mistake, we are attaching a copy of these objections. Mr. Bennett reported that in order to speed up this matter , he would request me to canvass the members of the Board of Directors immediately, rather than wait until the regular meeting of the Board, which will take place on Thursday, July 20, 1961. This has been done by me as President, and the members of the Board , excepting Mr. W. C. Parker, the Secretary , who is away on vacation , have made a decision with reference to the further objections, and requested that I transmit this decision to you. This decision is that, in view of the fact that a complete contract was submitted to you and no action taken by you on the contract except to suggest changes in the wording and other details, the offer of the Co-op , as contained in the proposal of July 6, 1961 , be completely withdrawn as an offer from the Co-op to the Union. In taking this action , I desire to call to your attention that on June 6, 1961, and on July 6, 1961, the Union had a complete contract and made no sub- stantial objections except to resubmit changes which indicated a desire to stall, more than any desire to reach an agreement. It is our feeling that the Union has failed to bargain in good faith. This Is to further notify you that the bargaining team consisting of the Manager, Mr. Lehman Lanier, and the Attorney, Mr. E. Kontz Bennett, will continue to represent the Co-op and are authorized and directed to meet with you further at any time which is suitable to all parties , and to further bargain with you, except that the offer of the contract submitted June 6, 1961, and July 6, 1961 , is withdrawn. Very truly yours, VB:ghs Cc: Mr. W. S. Bradford THE SATILLA RURAL ELECTRIC MEM- BERSHIP CORPORATION, By VALENE BENNETT, President Department of Labor Jacksonville, Florida At the fifth meeting before the conciliation commissioner on July 19, 1961, Attorney Bennett confirmed the withdrawal of all proposals by the Respondent, and announced that any further proposals by the Union would be submitted to Respond- ent's board of directors for consideration. After considerable discussion the meet- ing adjourned with no agreements reached. Representatives of the Union at this meeting consisted of International Representatives Arnold Madison , J. B. Pate, and certain members of the local committee. At the sixth meeting before the conciliation commissioner on August 1, 1961, the Union announced that it would prepare and submit another proposal for considera- tion by the Respondent . Immediately following adjournment the union negotiators prepared and delivered in writing to Attorney Bennett a complete contract proposal (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 5), including job classifications, wage scale , seniority provisions, etc. In form and substance this proposal was the same as that previously submitted by the Respondent , except that in article VIII the Union proposed a 40- hour week consisting of 5 consecutive 8-hour days from Monday through Saturday between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5 p m. with time out for lunch , whereas the Respondent had proposed a 40-hour week from Monday through Sunday with a lunch period normally taken from 12 noon to 1 p .m. each day; article IX provided for plantwide seniority rather than departmental seniority proposed by the Re- spondent; and article X provided an increase in wages at a fixed scale rather than a sliding scale of minimum and maximum wages in each classification to be deter- mined by management. The seventh and final meeting of the negotiating parties was held before the conciliation commissioner on August 21, 1961 . Attorney Bennett announced that the last contract proposal made by the Union on August 1, 1961 , had been rejected by Respondent's board of directors as unacceptable, especially with respect to the wage scale and seniority provisions . At the same time, Attorney Bennett questioned SATILLA RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION 391 the majority representation status of the Union by producing from his briefcase a document (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6) purportedly signed by 32 employees of the Respondent, which reads, as follows: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN WE THE UNDERSIGNED, A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SATILLA R E.A. AFFECTED BY THE I.B.E.W. ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE I.B.E.W. AND HAVE NEVER APPLIED FOR MEMBERSHIP; BEING SATISFIED WITH THE COMPANY WAGE AND HOUR POLICY BE- FORE THE UNION WAS VOTED IN, FEEL THAT THE I.B E.W. HAS BEEN A DAMAGE TO OUR PERSONAL WELFARE IN SO FAR AS WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS ARE CONCERNED; THERE- FORE WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS PETITION TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNDERSIGNED. Thereupon, Attorney Bennett expressed the opinion that the Union was in a very weak position to continue negotiations as bargaining representative of Respondent's employees, but nevertheless agreed to submit to his board of directors any proposal offered by the Union. Representatives of the Union contended that such a docu- ment had no place at the bargaining table. Following this meeting the Union prepared and submitted by mail a final and complete contract proposal (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7) in identical terms and provisions previously offered by the Respondent on June 16, 1961, and thereafter withdrawn. No reply thereto was ever received by the Union, but on or about September 4, 1961, a notice was posted for the benefit of employees by the Respondent on a bulletin board at its office in Jesup, Georgia, as follows: EXCERPT TAKEN FROM A SPECIAL MEETING OF DIRECTORS OF SATILLA RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION "The latest proposal of the Union was carefully considered by the Board and was unanimously rejected. In view of the fact that the Union no longer represents a majority of employees as shown by a recent petition signed by the majority of eligible employees and presented to the Cooperative, the Manager was instructed to begin the work of job evaluation as soon as possible under the Wage and Salary Plan formerly adopted by the Board and when such work is complete to make pay raises retroactive to July 1, 1961 as was normally scheduled." By letters dated September 15 and November 9, 1961, the Union requested At- torney Bennett to fix dates agreeable with the Respondent to resume negotiations, but Respondent has never suggested a convenient time or place for the parties to meet again. C. Wage increases The complaint alleges as a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act that in Septem- ber the Respondent promised, and on or about October 2, 1961, thereafter, without notice to or consultation with the Union, granted a general wage increase to all employees in the appropriate unit. The record shows, however, that since 1959 the Respondent has followed and on February 13, 1960, formally adopted a pattern or merit system recommended by the National Rural Electrification Cooperative As- sociation to periodically analyze the duties performed by each employee and grant wage increases to deserving employees semiannually effective on January 1 and July 1 each year. Employees participated in this program by submitting to manage- ment activity analysis sheets of duties performed, reviewing with the management staff the job descriptions in each classification, assisting in determining the number of employees to be assigned to each classification, and placing a dollar value on each job Notwithstanding the representation petition filed by the Union on September 21, 1959, the Board found in Case No. 10-CA-4386, reported in 129 NLRB 1084, that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by granting such wage increases in September 1959 and in February 1960. Furthermore, the Respondent again granted such wage increases retroactively effective on July 1, 1960, and January 1. 1961, without any objections being raised by the Union prior to the elec- tion on February 15, 1961, and certification of the Union on February 24, 1961. From a preponderance of the evidence in the present case, I find that during negotia- tions between the Respondent and the Union a question was raised by the president of Local Union 2098 (James H. Thomas) as to why the Respondent had not granted the customary wage increases effective July 1, 1961. Attorney Bennett for the Re- spondent expressed doubts as to the legality of granting such wage increases while the negotiations were in progress. I credit the sworn testimony of Attorney E. Kontz Bennett to the effect that International Representative J. B. Pate thereupon openly 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stated and repeated in the presence of the conciliation commissioner and assembled representatives of the Respondent and the Union that "Any benefits in effect at the time of certification can remain without any violation of T-H"-that Commissioner Kazin remarked that he saw no objection thereto-and that no one raised any objec- tion to a continuance of such wage increases under the plan previously adopted by the Respondent. Chief Negotiator Arnold Madison admitted on cross-examination that he was present during this discussion and raised no objections , but he now relates such conversation to existing benefits such as a Christmas bonus, etc ., which the Re- pondent should not take away because its employees had joined and selected the Union as their exclusive bargaining representative . Nevertheless, the Respondent did not thereafter proceed with the evaluation of jobs upon which to determine and grant such wage increases until the month of September , although employees not included in the bargaining unit had already received such increases effective July 1, 1961. In the meantime many employees in the unit became dissatisfied and fearful that the customary wage increases would not be granted to them , and consequently engaged in an abortive effort to decertify the Union as bargaining representative, as evidenced by the signed document exhibited by Attorney Bennett at the meeting of August 21, 1961, and by reason of which the Respondent questioned the majority status of the Union . The record shows that this document (General Counsel's Ex- hibit No. 6) was forwarded to the Regional Office of the Board , Atlanta, Georgia, but no affirmative action was taken thereon , presumably because it was submitted within the certification year, which by rule of the Board is afforded to every duly certified labor organization in the absence of unusual circumstances to freely assert its majority status. I am, therefore, constrained to find that the Respondent deliberately suspended and delayed the granting of regular serniannular wage in- ,creases to employees in the bargaining unit as a means of weakening and discrediting the Union as bargaining representative. Concluding Findings The material facts in this case are not denied . The principal areas of disagree- ment were seniority provisions and the wage scale. The Respondent submitted a complete contract proposal in writing on June 16, 1961, that provided departmental seniority and a minimum-maximum sliding wage scale , which were already in effect, but promptly withdrew all proposals when the Union suggested certain changes therein. The Union then submitted a complete contract proposal on August 1, 1961, substantially different from that of the Respondent only to the extent that it would provide plantwide seniority and an increase in wages at a fixed scale for each classi- fication. This proposal was rejected by the Respondent, and it thereafter refused to make any counterproposals, but passively agreed to submit further proposals from the Union to its board of directors. Finally on and after August 21, 1961, the Re- spondent questioned the majority status and authority of the Union to continue negotiations for a contract on behalf of employees in the unit . Thereupon, the Union abandoned its efforts to obtain plantwide seniority and wage increases at a `fixed rate; and proposed to enter into a contract according to the exact terms, condi- tions, and wages proposed and withdrawn by the Respondent Respondent made no reply to this ultimate proposal other than post a notice to employees on its bulletin board to the effect that its board of directors had rejected the latest proposal and instructed its manager to effectuate wage increases retroactive to July 1, 1961 , because the Union no longer represented a majority of employees in the appropriate unit. It is admitted that the aforesaid job evaluations were completed in October 1961, and wage increases granted retroactively to July 1, 1961. Such being the position taken by the Respondent within 6 months after the Union was duly certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in an appropriate unit, I am convinced and find from undisputed evidence that the Respondent first indicated a refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union by a letter from its president on July 8, 1961, withdrawing all previous proposals and thereafter refusing to do more than passively submit further proposals from the Union to its board of directors for superficial consideration and rejection; secondly, Respondent refused to bargain by raising a captious doubt on or after August 21, 1961, as to the majority status of the Union within the so-called certification year 2 relying upon the expressed dis- satisfaction of employees from whom it was withholding customary semiannual wage increases within the sliding wage scale already in effect as a part of the company wage and salary plan; thirdly, Respondent refused to bargain by unilaterally posting a notice to employees on or about September 4, 1961 . to the effect that the latest 2 See Ray Brooks v. N L R B., 348 U S. 96. SATILLA RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION 393 proposal of the Union had been rejected, asserting that the Union no longer rep- resented a majority of employees in the appropriate unit; and fourthly, Respondent refused to bargain by belatedly in October 11961 granting wage increases retroactive to July 1, 1961, under its existing wage and salary plan, without notice to or consultation with the Union, for the purpose of discrediting the duly certified and exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the appropriate unit.3 It is the opinion of the Trial Examiner that the granting of wage increases by the Respondent in due course of business under its previously adopted wage and salary plan in the absence of objections from a duly certified bargaining representative of its employees is not contrary to the policies of the Act, but when announced in this case by reason of efforts to destroy the majority status of the Union, I am convinced that the Re- spondent refused to bargain in good faith with the Union I find, therefore, that on and after July 8, 1961, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as duly certified representative of its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The conduct of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occuring in connec- tion with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent at all times since July 8, 1961, has refused to bargain with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the certified exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restrain- ing, and coercing such employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; and has been at all times material to this case the certified exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, consisting of: All hourly paid employees of the Employer including electricians, linemen, apprentices, helpers, groundmen, truckdrivers, warehousemen, mechanics, meter and transformer repairmen, materials clerks, janitors, and working foremen, but excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. By refusing at all times since July 8, 1961, to bargain collectively in good faith with aforesaid Union, as such exclusive representative of its employees, the Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Satilla Rural Electric Member- ship Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively (as defined in Section 8(d) of the Act) with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar- 8 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Ltd, 101 NLRB 394; Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 106 NLRB 939; Herman Sausage Co, Inc, 122 NLRB 168; "M" System, Inc, Mobile Home Division Mid-States Corporation, 129 NLRB 527; Fitz- gerald Mills Corporation, 133 NLRB 877 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gaining representative of all employees in the unit hereinbefore found to be appropri- ate for the purpose of collective bargaining. (b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (2) Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all hourly paid employees in the unit heretofore found by the Board to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and, when an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a written agreement. (b) Post at its principal office or place of business at Alma, Georgia, and at its branches at Douglas, Hazelhurst, and Jesup, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from receipt hereof, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with this Recommended Order.5 I In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " 5In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with or obstruct the efforts of Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively with Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of ,all our employees in the unit found to be appropriate by the National Labor Relations Board. The appropriate unit is: All hourly employees of the Employer, including electricians, linemen, apprentices, helpers, groundmen, truckdrivers, warehousemen, mechanics, meter and transformer repairmen, materials clerks, janitors, and working foremen, but excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. SATILLA RURAL ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone Number, Trinity 6-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.