Avalair Corp.

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Avalair Corporation and District 39, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO and Local Lodge 2140 of the Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 7-CA--3567(l), 7-CA-3567(2), and 7-CA-4060. July 17, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1963, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone 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 attached Interme- diate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection, with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. ' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the General Counsel's exceptions and brief, and the-entire record in this proceed- ing, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modification. The Trial Examiner found, inter alia, that since on or about Janu- ary 2, 1963, the Respondent had refused to execute a contract incor- porating the agreement reached with. Local 2140, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner never- theless denied the General Counsel's request that the Respondent be required to execute the contract on the ground that the record did not clearly show that the duration of the contract had been agreed upon, and recommended only that the Respondent be ordered, upon request, to bargain collectively with Local 2140. The General Counsel contends that, as the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had reached agreement with Local 2140 on all the terms and conditions of a contract, and as there is no evidence whatsoever that the terms of the agreement did not include the duration of the contract, the Respondent should be ordered to execute the contract. We agree. Accordingly, we shall adopt the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner with the added requirement that the Respondent, upon request, execute the contract on which it had reached agreement with Local 2140.2 , The Respondent, which filed no answer to the consolidated complaint, and no response to the •Trial Examiner's notice to show cause why he should not grant the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment, also `filed no exceptions to the Intermediate Report. 2 In view of our disposition of this matter, we hereby deny the General Counsel's motion to reopen the record to introduce into evidence the written agreement reached by the parties. 143 NLRB No. 70. AVALAIR CORPORATION ORDER 651 The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order made by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report with the following addition to be numbered 2(b), provisions 2(b) and 2(c) of these recommendations to be renumbered 2(c) and 2(d), respectively: If requested by-Local Lodge 2140 of the International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, execute the contract on which it reached agreement with the said Union.' a The notice attached to the Intermediate Report is amended by adding as the last para- graph of the notice the following: Ws WILL, if requested , by Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, execute the contract on which we reached agreement with the said Union. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED -ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed in Cases Nos. 7-CA-3567(l) and 7-CA-3567(2) and Case No. 7-CA-4060, the General Counsel issued his order consolidating cases, and com- plaint dated February 26, 1963, against Avalair Corporation (herein called the Respondent). In substance the complaint alleges that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in conduct proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (herein called the Act) and that such conduct affected and was affecting commerce as set forth in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint also set forth that an informal settlement agreement in Cases Nos. 7-CA- 3567(1) and 7-CA-3567(2) had been executed and entered into, and had been approved by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region on April 20, 1962. The complaint further alleged that the Respondent had violated the terms of the settle- ment agreement and that the Regional Director for the Seventh Region had vacated and set aside the settlement agreement in part as it related to -the enjoinment of conduct prohibited by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.' On March 13, 1963, counsel for General Counsel notified Respondent by mail that an answer to the complaint (dated February 26, 1963) had not been received, that the Board Rules and Regulations, Section 102.20 and 120.21 required such answer, and that if an answer were not received by March 18 , 1963, that a motion would be filed for a summary judgment. On March 20, 1963, counsel for General Counsel filed a motion for summary judgment and served the same on Respondent . The said motion averred, among other things, that Respondent had not filed an answer to the complaint (dated Feb- ruary 26, 1963), and moved that the allegations in the complaint be deemed to be admitted to be true and so found by the Trial Examiner, and that violations of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (5) be found without the taking of evidence in support of the complaint. Counsel for General Counsel further requested the issuance of an Intermediate Report with certain findings and remedies. On March 25, 1963, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued a telegraphic order giving notice to show cause on or before Friday March 29, 1963, why the motion for summary judgment should not be granted , and in due course, an appropriate Inter- mediate Report prepared and issued. On April 1, 1963, the Trial Examiner issued a telegraphic order advising the parties that Respondent had not responded to the March 25, 1962, notice to show cause, that motion for summary judgment was granted, that the notice of hearing 'The charge in Case No. 7-CA-4060 was filed on January 10, 1963, by Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO (sometimes herein re- ferred to as Local Lodge 2140 ), and was served on Respondent on January 11, 1963. The charge in Case No. 7-CA-3567(1) was filed on January 31, 1963, by District 39, Inter- national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO ( sometimes herein referred to as District 39), and was served on Respondent on February 2, 1963 The charge in Case No. 7-CA-3567(2) was filed by District 39 on February 6, 1962, and was served on Respond- ent on February 7, 1962. 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD previously issued was vacated, that the time for filing of briefs, or proposed findings and conclusions, or both was on or before April 15, 1963, and that if the parties, or any of them, desired oral argument, request must be made within 5 days of the April 7, 1963, order to me. On April 8, 1963, I transmitted to the parties courtesy copies of the March 25 and April 1, 1963, telegraphic orders, and advised that no request for oral argument had been made and that the time for filing of briefs, proposed conclusions of law, and findings of fact remained as April 15, 1963. Briefs, proposed conclusions of law, and findings of fact have not been received from the parties .2 Upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: 3 FINDINGS OF FACT 4 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly or- ganized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan. At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained its principal office, plant, and place of business at Cleveland Avenue, Baroda, Michigan. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in said Baroda, Michigan, place of business in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of travel trailers and related prod- ucts. The Baroda, Michigan, place of business is the only facility involved in this proceeding. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1962, which period is representative of its operations during all times material herein, Respondent, in the course and con- duct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Baroda, Michigan, place of business, travel trailers and related products valued in excess of $130,000, of which products valued in excess of $120,000 were shipped from said place of business directly to points located outside of the State of Michigan. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1962, which period is representative of its business operations during all times material hereto, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, purchased, and caused to be transported and delivered at its place of business in Baroda, Michigan, aluminum, steel, and other goods and materials valued in excess of $60,000, which goods and materials valued in excess of a The General Counsel's motion for summary judgment does however contain requests in this nature. 31 have identified and marked the formal documents from the Board's formal file in these proceedings as "Trial Examiner's Exhibits 1-A through 1-M," and have received the same on my own motion into the record, waiving duplicate exhibits for the same. The various recitals therein in connection with the various affidavits of service reveal the necessary serving of the charges, complaint, motions, and orders upon the parties I so find I have also identified and marked the complaint issued on March 14, 1962 (Cases Nos. 7-CA-3567 and 7-CA-356'7(2)) as "Trial Examiner's Exhibit 2-A," the Respondent's answer thereto dated March 20, 1962, as "Trial Examiner's Exhibit 2-B," and the settle- ment agreement in Cases Nos 7-OA-3567 and 7-CA-3567(2), dated as approved on April 20, 1962, as "Trial Examiner's Exhibit 2-C," and on my own motion have deemed said exhibits offered into the record, but have rejected the same and have placed the same in the rejected exhibit file. These exhibits are not properly to be considered on the motion for summary judgment inasmuch as the settlement agreement approved on April 20, 1962, provided for withdrawal of the complaint dated March 14, 1962, and thus eliminated the pleadings in this matter. The Respondent has had ample opportunity to file an answer in the ingtant matter and under all the circumstances appears to have disregarded the obligation to file such an answer to the complaint dated February 26, 1963. Under such circumstances I find no warrant for my revitalizing an answer made a nullity by the settlement agreement dated and approved on April 20, 1962 'All findings of fact herein are based on the undenied allegations of the complaint Issued in this matter dated February 26, 1963 The National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, Section 102 20, provides that "All allega- tions in the complaint, if no answer is filed . . . shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board, unless good cause to the contrary is shown." In view of the ample notice to Respondent in connection with the motion for summary judg- ment, and the undenied averment in said motion to the effect that an answer had not been filed, and as no answer or response has been made to my various orders in connection with the motion for summary judgment, I so find that the allegations of the complaint (dated February 26, 1963 ) are deemed to be admitted to be true and I so find the facts as alleged in said complaint. AVALAIR CORPORATION 653 $50,000 were transported to said place of business in Michigan directly from sup- pliers located in States of the United States other than the State of Michigan. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED District 39, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, and Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, each is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Supervisors At all times material herein , the following named persons occupied positions set opposite their respective names, and have been and are now agents of Respondent acting on its behalf, and have been and are now supervisors of the Respondent, within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: Lawrence Zuhl ---------------------------------- President Herbert Lohrke --------------------------------- Shop superintendent Horst Lohrke ----------------------------------- Cabinet shop foreman Stuart Jennings --------------------------------- Plant superintendent B. The bargaining unit All production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, employed by the Respondent at its place of business at Baroda, Michigan, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. C. The selection of the bargaining agent On or about April 3, 1962, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director of the Seventh Region of the Board, pursuant to an agreement for consent election in Case No. 7-RC-5171, a majority of em- ployees in the unit described in section III, B, of this report designated and selected Local Lodge 2140 as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees, in the unit set forth in section III, B, of this report, for the purposes of collective bargaining. D. Exclusive representative status At all times since April 24, 1962, and continuing to date, Local Lodge 2140 has been the representative for purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the unit described in section III, B, of this report, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been and is now the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. E. The refusal to bargain Since on or about July 11, 1962, and at all times thereafter and continuing to date hereof, Respondent has failed to and continues to fail to bargain in good faith with Local Lodge 2140 as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit described in section III, B, of this report. Particular acts evidencing Respondent's aforesaid refusal to bargain are: (1) Respondent since on or about July 11, 1962, has negotiated with Local Lodge 2140 in bad faith and with no intention of entering into a final and binding written collective-bargaining agreement. (2) Since on or about January 2, 1963, Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to execute a written collective-bargaining agreement incorporating the final agreement reached by Respondent and Local Lodge 2140 as to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. (3) Since on or about October 12, 1962, and continuing to date hereof, Respond- ent has repudiated and continues to repudiate the agreement on and has shifted and continues to shift its position in respect to agreed-upon contractual provisions. Based upon the foregoing, I conclude and find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD F. The informal settlement agreement On or about April 16, 1962, Respondent and District 39 executed and en- tered into an informal settlement agreement in Cases Nos. 7-CA-3567(l) and 7-CA- 3567(2), approved by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region on or about April 20, 1962, which provided among other things that Respondent would not engage in the conduct set forth in section III, G, of this report, nor in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The Regional Director for the Seventh Region on or about February 20, 1963, vacated and set aside said settlement agreement in part as it relates to the enjoinment of conduct prohibited by Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. By virtue of the acts and conducts previously found in section III, E, of this report to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, I conclude and find that Re- spondent violated the terms of the informal settlement agreement (approved by the Regional Director on April 20, 1962) and that thus the matter of alleged conduct violative of the Act occurring prior to April 20, 1962, is properly considered in this proceeding. - G. Interference, restraint, and coercion prior to April 20, 1962 Since on or about August 17, 1961, and continuing to date, Respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by the following acts and conduct: (1) Respondent, by its following named supervisors, agents, and representatives, on or about the dates set opposite their names, warned its employees at its place of business in Baroda, Michigan, that Respondent would discharge its employees, that it would close and/or move its plant, and that it would take other reprisals against its employees, if said employees became or remained members of District 39 or gave any assistance to it: Lawrence Zuhi -------------- January 25 and February 1 and 2, 1962 Herbert Lohrke January 8 and February 1, 1962 Horst Lohrke ---------------- August 17 and December 27, 1961, and February 1, 1962 (2) On or about February 2, 1962, Respondent, by its supervisor, officer, and agent, Lawrence Zuhl, and on or about January 31, 1962, by its supervisor and agent, Herbert Lohrke, interrogated its employees at its place of business in Baroda, Michigan, concerning their union membership, activities, and desires. (3) On or about February 1, 1962, Respondent, by its supervisor, officer, and agent, Lawrence Zuhl, at its place of business in Baroda, Michigan, offered, promised, and granted to its employees wage increases to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of District 39 or giving any assistance or support to it. (4) On or about January 26, 1962, Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Herbert Lohrke, at its place of business in Baroda, Michigan, disparagingly and co- ercively threw an employee's union button on the floor in the presence of other em- ployees of Respondent. (5) On or about February 1 and 2, 1962, Respondent, by its supervisor, officer, and agent, Lawrence Zuhl, at its place of business in Baroda, Michigan, suggested and requested that its employees select an employee of Respondent as their exclusive collective-bargaining representative to deal with Respondent regarding wages, hours, and other working conditions of said employees, at a time when District 39 was in the midst of its organizational campaign. Based upon the foregoing, I conclude and find that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce upon the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V.,THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma. tive action to effectuate the policies of the Act. AVALAIR CORPORATION 655 It has been found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with Local Lodge 2140 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with Local Lodge 2140 as such representative, and, in the event that an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The General Counsel requests that the Respondent be required to forthwith "execute the collective bargaining agreement agreed upon between it and Local Lodge 2140 and abide by the terms and conditions of said agreement." In my opinion, the facts do not clearly reveal that terms specifying the duration of the contract had been agreed upon, nor if such agreement had been made, the specific dates of the contract's duration. Under such circumstances I believe that such an order would be inappropri- ate.5 Because of the related nature of certain other General Counsel remedial re- quests to the foregoing, I have not fashioned the remedy requested, but recommend a remedy I deem to effectuate the purposes of the Act. As the record reveals that the Respondent has repetitiously engaged in unfair labor practices, and in view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices com- mitted, it is recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and cease and desist from infringing in any other manner upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 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. District 39, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 2. Avalair Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. All production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, employed by the Respondent at its place of business at Baroda, Michigan, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, was, on April 24, 1962, and at all times since has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, within the meaning of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in said appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 7. 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 6 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case , it is recommended 7 that the Respondent , Avalair Corporation, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Negotiating in bad faith and with no intention of entering into a final and binding collective -bargaining agreement with the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. (b) Repudiating agreed-upon contractual provisions in furtherance of an intent to refuse to bargain in good faith with the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. (c) In any other manner refusing to bargain collectively with Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre- sentative of all production and maintenance employees , including truckdrivers, em- ployed by Avalair Corporation at its place of business at Baroda, Michigan, but ex- 5 Ridge Citrus Concentrate, Inc., 133 NLRB 1178 6 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the word "Order" shall be deemed substituted for the words "Recommended Order " 4 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the word "Ordered" shall be deemed substituted for the word "Recommended " 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (d) Threatening its employees with discharge, with the closing of the plant, with the removal of the plant, or with other reprisals if they become or remain members of, or give assistance to, District 39, International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization. (e) Interrogating its employees about their union membership, activities, or de- sires in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (f) Offering, promising, or granting its employees wage increases to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of District 39, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or to induce said employees to refrain from giving assistance or support to the aforesaid labor or- ganization, or to any other labor organization. (g) Attempting to frustrate the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act by suggesting to and/or requesting its employees to select one of its employees as the employees exclusive collective-bargaining representative to deal with itself regarding wages, hours, and other working conditions of its employees. (h) Throwing employees' union buttons on the floor or otherwise engaging in dis- paraging and coercive conduct intended to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. (i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza- tions, including the above-named labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all em- ployees within the appropriate unit described above with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an under- standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its premises in Baroda, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.9 8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De- cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." E In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, In writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX A INDEX AND DESCRIPTION TRIAL EXAMINER'S EXHIBITS NO. 1 1-A Order consolidating cases, complaint and Notice of Hearing-dated February 26, 1963, (Cases Nos. 7-CA-3567 ( 1) and (2 ) and 7-CA-4060). i-B Motion for Summary Judgment-dated March 20, 1963, (attached to Motion- letter March 13, 1963-Milton Fischer to Avalair Corporation re INTENT TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Copies of charges and Affidavit of Service-7-CA-3567-filed 1-31-62, Affidavit of Service AVALAIR CORPORATION 657 of Charge 7-CA-3567--dated February 2, 1962, Charge 7-CA-3567(2) filed 2-6-62, Affidavit of Service of Charge 7-CA-3567(2) dated February 7, 1962. Charge-7-CA-4060-filed 1-10-63, Affidavit of Service of Charge 7-CA-4060 dated January 11, 1963. 1-C Affidavit of Milton Fischer relative to Transmission of Letter of March 13, 1963, to Respondent concerning intent to file Motion for Summary Judgment- Affidavit dated March 29, 1963. 1-D Affidavit of Service of Motion and Summary Judgment dated-March 20, 1963 -with return receipt attached. 1-E Trial Examiner's Telegraphic Order of March 25, 1963, Notice to Show Cause why Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. 1-F Affidavit of Service of Trial Examiner's Telegraphic Order of March 25, 1963- Notice to Show Cause why Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted-Affidavit dated April 15, 1963. 1-G March 26, 1963 Telegram from Louis E. Schmidt responding to March 25, 1963 Trial Examiner's Telegraphic Order. 1-H Trial Examiner's Telegraphic Order of April 1, 1963, granting Motion for Summary Judgment. 1-I Affidavit of Service of Trial Examiner's Telegraphic Order of April 1, 1963, Affidavit dated April 15, 1963. 1-J Reports of delivery of Telegraphic Orders of March 25, 1963, and April 1, 1963. 1-K Trial Examiner's Order of April 5, 1963. 1-L Affidavit of Service of Trial Examiner's Order of Return Receipt attached April 8, 1963. Affidavit of Service dated April 8, 1963. 1-M Index and Description of Exhibits. TRIAL EXAMINER'S REJECTED EXHIBIT FILE TRIAL EXAMINER'S EXHIBITS NO. 2 2-A Order consolidating cases, complaint and Notice of Hearing-with attachment of charge dated March 14, 1962, (Cases Nos. 7 -CA-3567; 7-CA-3567-2). 2-B Respondent's Answer to Complaint-Cases Nos. 7-CA-3567; 7-CA-3567-2 (Avalair Corporation). Dated-March 20, 1962. 2-C Settlement Agreement-Cases 7-CA-3567- 1 and 7-CA-3567-2-dated Ap- proved April 20, 1962. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re- lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representa- tive of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, em- ployed by Avalair Corporation at its place of business at Baroda, Michigan, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT negotiate in bad faith and with no intention of entering into a final and binding collective-bargaining agreement with the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees. WE WILL NOT repudiate agreed-upon contractual provisions in furtherance of an intent to bargain in good faith with the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner refuse to bargain collectively with Local Lodge 2140 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the above-described bargaining unit. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge, with the closing of the plant, with the removal of the plant, or with other reprisals, if they become or 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD remain members of or give assistance to District 39, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union membership, activities, or desires in a manner constituting interference , restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT offer, promise, or grant our employees wage increases to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of District 39, Interna- tional Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or to induce said employees to refrain from giving assistance or support to the aforesaid labor organization, or to any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT attempt to frustrate the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act by suggesting to and/or requesting our employees to select one of our employees as our employees exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative to deal with ourselves regarding wages, hours, and other working con- ditions of our employees. WE WILL NOT throw employees' union buttons on the floor or otherwise engage in disparaging and coercive conduct intended to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. All our employees are free to become and remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. AVALAIR CORPORATION, Employer. Dated-------- ----------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit, Michigan, Telephone No. 963-9330, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Eastern Greyhound Lines (A Division of The Greyhound Corpo- ration) and Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Rail- way and Motor Coach Employees of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-3046. July 17, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 22, 1963, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port and a brief in support thereof. 143 NLRB No. 71.