Hart Motor Express, Inc.

382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hart Motor Express, Inc. and General Drivers Local 120, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America Office & Professional Employees International Union , Local 12, AFL-CIO (Hart Motor Express, Inc.) and General Drivers Local 120, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 18-CA-2207 and 18-CB-265. May 5, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On September 29, 1966, Trial Examiner David London issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter each Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging Union filed an answering brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor- Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent Hart Motor Express, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , and Respondent Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. ' The Respondent Union has requested oral argument. As the record , including the briefs of the parties , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties , the request is hereby denied. 2 In adopting the Trial Examiner's findings, we do not rely on any part of George's testimony that was stricken from the record. This includes a conclusory statement that the employees became very upset when they heard that the March 24 negotiation meeting had been canceled and also a statement by a Board agent to George as to her obligation as a job stewardess to attend the March 29 negotiation meeting. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CSE DAVID LONDON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge and an amended charge in Case 18-CA-2207 filed on April 4 and May 16, 1966, respectively, by General Drivers Local 120, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called Teamsters), and a charge filed May 16, 1966, by the Teamsters in Case 18-C B-265, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting Regional Director for Region 18, on May 23, 1966, consolidated said proceedings and issued a consolidated complaint alleging that Hart Motor Express, Inc. (Respondent Employer) had engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), and that Office & Professional Employer's office employees which contract contains a valid union-security clause and which contract was executed "notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent Employer and Respondent Union each knew at the time of execution of said contract that Respondent Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the above-described unit." By their separate answers, each Respondent admitted most of the factual allegations of the complaint but denied that at the time of the execution of the contract aforementioned it had knowledge that the Respondent Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees covered by said contract, and denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice duly served, a hearing was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on July 19, 1966. All parties were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to be heard, to present relevant evidence, oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and both Respondents have been fully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of the parties, and my observation of the demeanor of each of the witnesses appearing before me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYER Respondent Employer is, and at all times material herein has been, engaged in the freight hauling business, with offices and freight terminal at St. Paul, Minnesota. Its operations constitute an integral link in the handling and transportation of freight and merchandise across State boundaries. During its past fiscal year, which period is representative of all times material herein, Respondent Employer, in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived gross income in excess of $50,000 for furnishing interstate transportation services. All the parties hereto admit, and I find, that Respondent Employer is now and at all times material herein has been 164 NLRB No. 60 HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent Union and the Teamsters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent Employer has approximately 300 employees all of whom are represented by labor unions-the drivers by the Teamsters, the mechanics by the Machinists, and the office employees by Respondent Union. With respect to the office employees, the only group with which we are concerned, the testimony is undisputed that Respondent Union has been their collective-bargaining representative since about 1950 when it was so certified following a Board-conducted election. The most recent contract between the parties, other than the one here under attack, was effective from April 1, 1963, to and including March 31, 1966. To achieve this 1963 agreement, Federal and State conciliation services were called upon for assistance. Full agreement was not reached, however, until after the expiration of the prior contract. The 1963 agreement, as well as its predecessor contract executed in 1960, was submitted to, and ratified by, the membership of Respondent Union before execution thereof. Donald R. Hilliker, business manager of Respondent Union, testified that early in March 1966, he met with the unit, bargaining committee, drafted a proposed contract, and, between March 12 and 15, submitted the proposal to Respondent Employer. Due to an extremely heavy workload occasioned by the Union's other units, Hilliker failed to schedule a negotiation meeting with the Company for any date prior to March 23. Because of an unusual heavy snowfall during the previous night which paralyzed all traffic, the March 23 meeting was canceled early that morning and rescheduled for March 24. During the morning of March 24, Hilliker's wife called Bernice L. George, Respondent Union's shop steward, told her that Hilliker had hurt his back shoveling snow the day before, and that the meeting scheduled for that day had been canceled. She further informed George that the meeting would be rescheduled for Thursday of the following week, March 31, the expiration date of the existing bargaining agreement. During the morning of March 24 when several office employees asked George why she "wasn't in negotiations" she told them that Hilliker had canceled the meeting, an announcement which caused the employees to "become very upset." They complained to George not only about the delay in negotiations, but also because Hilliker had failed to respond to their earlier telephone calls and failed to process their grievances. At least two employees told George they wanted the Teamsters to represent them and asked her how to go about it. George contacted Darby Peterson, an organizer for the Teamsters, told him what had taken place, and "how the employees felt." Peterson told her he did not know anything about "decertification papers" but that she had to have "some kind of a petition and . a majority." George immediately prepared and signed the following petition: March 24,1966 383 We the following wish to desert from Office Employees' Union Local 12, AFL-CIO Mpls. Minnesota. George circulated the document in the office and, by 12:45 p.m. of that day, secured the signatures thereto of 17 other office employees. At Peterson's suggestion , George called the Board's Regional Office for procedural advice and was told that "it was up to Mr. Peterson to have his cards signed." George met Peterson the evening of March 24, showed him the aforementioned petition , and received a supply of cards designating the Teamsters as collective-bargaining representative. During the morning of Friday, March 25, she distributed the Teamsters cards to the office employees and, by 2:30 or 3 p.m. of the same day, cards bearing the signatures of 19 office employees out of a total of 26 members in the unit were returned to her. She delivered the 19 cards to Peterson on the following Monday, March 28. In the meantime , on Friday, March 25, Peterson sent a telegram to George Hart, President of Respondent Employer, reading as follows: DEAR SIR-WE OF LOCAL #120 GENERAL DRIVERS HELPERS AND TRUCK TERMINAL EMPLOYEES REPRE- SENT A VAST MAJORITY OF YOUR OFFICE EMPLOYEES. FOLLOWING APRIL 1, 1966 WE WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH YOU TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR THESE EMPLOYEES. THANKING YOU I REMAIN- DARBY D PETERSON ORGANIZER CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTER- GENERAL DRIVERS LOCAL 120 320 UNIV AVE ST PAUL MINN- About 3 p.m. of March 28, Hilliker called George and told her that Hart had called him requesting a negotiation meeting on the following morning and that Hart would personally participate therein. George told Hilliker that she had just delivered the Teamsters cards to that organization and that she did not know whether she would be "jeopardizing" the rights of the Teamsters card signers by attending the proposed meeting, but that she would call O'Connell, a labor board employee with whom she had previously been in contact. She made that call and was informed it was her obligation to attend the negotiation meeting. She so advised Hilliker and a meeting was arranged for the following morning at 9 o'clock. In attendance at the meeting on March 29, were Hilliker, George, and Aletha Caven, on behalf of Respondent Union; Max Durand, a labor relations consultant, appeared in behalf of Respondent Employer. When George asked why Hart was not present, Durand merely stated that Hart would not attend the meeting. Durand informed Hilliker of the Teamsters telegram of March 25 and asked Hilliker whether he had authority to negotiate a contract. Hilliker replied affirmatively. The discussions commenced with a reading of the opening paragraph of Respondent Union's proposal aforementioned at which time George interjected that Hart had failed to appear as promised, and that it was "utterly ridiculous to ... try to negotiate a contract" with Hilliker when the employees did not want him as their representative and that it was necessary that Hart participate in the meeting. 384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD During the discussion, George stated "that she could stall the negotiations until mid-night March 31 ... and at that point the Teamsters would automatically take over." Durand tried to reach Hart but was unable to do so and the parties recessed for lunch. The suggested meeting, with at least 18 office employees in attendance , was called about noon of the following day, March 30, with George presiding. She informed the employees that Hilliker wanted to talk to them and Hilliker did so. He admitted that there was "unhappiness" among the employees over the delay in handling their grievances but asserted he felt he had done a good job for them, and would continue to do so in the future. George asked the employees whether any of them desired to speak in Hilliker's behalf and no one responded. She next asked whether anyone present "would like to change their decision for the Teamsters," and again no one responded. George testified that at this point Hilliker "just flew out of the office." During the evening of that day, March 30, Hilliker made arrangements to meet with Durand on the following day but did not notify either George or Caven, both of whom had attended the earlier negotiation meeting as the unit's duly designated bargaining committee. Instead, Hilliker alone met with Durand and Hart during the following morning and discussed the Respondent Union's proposal. The negotiations continued through the lunch period following which Respondent Employer presented an "entire package offer" including new wage and fringe benefits. Hilliker asked for a recess to study and analyze the offer following which he asked for a further recess to enable him to contact not the unit's bargaining committee, but his International office. He called that office and was advised to accept the offer and to sign the contract. He then made arrangement to have the contract prepared by his office after the usual work hours. Hilliker met again with Hart and Durand at 9:50 p.m. at which time Hilliker and Hart executed the agreement in behalf of the respective parties. The agreement, containing a valid union-security clause requiring membership in the Respondent Union, and a checkoff provision, was to be effective from 12:01 a.m. of the following morning, April 1, 1966, to and including midnight of March 31, 1969. Contrary to past practice, however, the contract was never submitted to the membership of Respondent Union for ratification. On April 1, the Teamsters filed a petition with the Board seeking certification as representative of Respondent Employer's office employees and wired Respondent Employer that it was willing to prove its majority status by a "show of cards." Respondent Employer made no reply thereto. As previously indicated, it is the contention of the General Counsel that Respondent Employer violated the Act by bargaining , executing, and maintaining in effect a collective-bargaining agreement with a known minority incumbent union, and that Respondent Union violated the Act by accepting bargaining authority, and executing a new agreement, when it knew it no longer possessed authority to do so. Both Respondents contend that under the revised contract bar rules established by the Board in Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1000-01, the complaint herein should be dismissed. The rule relied on by Respondents establishes a "60 day insulated period immediately preceding and including the ' Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., supra, 916, fn. 10 expiration date of an existing contract ... during which the parties may negotiate and execute a new and amended agreement without the intrusion of a rival petition." On the entire record, and for the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Board by its decision in Deluxe Metal never contemplated or intended indiscriminate application of the aforementioned rule, and certainly not to the facts presented herein. Though the briefs of both Respondents lend an aura of plausibility to their contention that Deluxe Metal requires dismissal of the instant proceeding, I am unable to believe or conclude that under any and all circumstances, and regardless of how grossly derelict or malfeasant a union may become in the performance of its duties and obligations as collective-bargaining representative during the last 60 days of its contract term,the Board intended, by its Deluxe Metal decision, to foreclose employees from then discharging that union as their future representative and instead to shackle them for a further 3-year term with a representative that they do not want. Such indiscriminate application of Deluxe Metal would do violence to the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. Here, the employees' dissatisfaction with representation by the incumbent Respondent Union came to a climax on March 24 when, a week before their existing contract was to expire, they learned that no negotiations for a future contract had yet taken place. This neglect was undoubtedly, and justifiably so, a matter of the utmost and grave concern to the employees, especially in view of the fact that in 1960 and 1963 Federal and State authorities had to be called upon before negotiations were completed. That the broad and indiscriminate application of Deluxe Metal invoked by Respondents was not intended by the Board is clearly made apparent by its recent and later decision in Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., 149 NLRB 910. There, the employer had a collective-bargaining agreement with an incumbent union which expired on December 31, 1963. On December 20, 1963, when the union no longer represented a majority of the employees, it entered into a new contract with the employer for a 2-year term beginning January 1, 1964. Though the employer invoked the 60-day insulated period doctrine of Deluxe Metal as a defense,' the Board nevertheless found and concluded that by executing the December 20 contract both the employer and the union had violated the Act. It so found and concluded, as I do herein, because at the time the contract in question was executed, "both the Company and the Union knew that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit." City Cab, Inc., 128 NLRB 493, upon which both Respondents ?ely, is distinguishable and inapposite. There, the contract with the incumbent union expired on March 31, 1959. On the previous January 14, prior to the beginning of the insulated period, a rival union "claimed to represent the employees" in the unit involved. On January 27, the incumbent union sent a letter to the employer seeking to reopen the contract for purposes of negotiating certain modifications. Negotiations ensued and, some time between March 24 and April 1, the employer and the incumbent union executed a 3-year contract effective April 1. Because the rival union had failed within the period prescribed by Deluxe Metal to file a timely petition seeking to establish its claimed majority status, the Board found that the employer had not violated the Act. What was lacking there, and present in the case before me, is evidence that before the contract was HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. executed, the incumbent union had been shorn of its authority to negotiate the new agreement in behalf of the employees involved. It being undisputed here that the employees had, on March 24, repudiated Respondent Union, there remains for consideration only the ultimate question of whether or not, on March 31, 1966, when they negotiated and executed their contract for the term beginning on the following day, both Respondents knew that prior thereto the employees had rejected the Respondent Union as their collective-bargaining representative. Hart, president of Respondent Employer, testified that on March 24, the day that a majority of the employees in the unit signed the petition repudiating the Union, he was informed by Westberg, his office manager, that a petition had been circulated by his employees. Though Hart testified that he "had no way of knowing" whether a majority of the employees signed the petition and "had no knowledge of what the petition was about," he admitted that on April 18, 1966, less than a month after the event, he gave an affidavit to a Board investigator in which he stated that on March 24, following his conversation with Westberg, he "understood the purpose of the petition was to get rid of the union representing the employees and to get another union in. I understood that a majority of the employees had signed a petition." On the entire record, and my observation of Hart while testifying, I find that on and after March 24, Respondent Employer knew that Respondent Union did not represent a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.2 I further find that on and after March 25, Respondent Union also knew that it had been repudiated and rejected as collective-bargaining representative by the employees in question for the period commencing April 1, 1966. Hilliker admitted that on March 25-George told him "that the employees were signing a petition for the Teamsters." He also admitted that at the morning meeting on March 29, in her endeavor to prevent negotiations by Respondent Union in behalf of the employees, George told him and Durand "that she could stall the negotiations until midnight, March 31, which was the expiration date and time of the contract, and at the point the Teamsters then would automatically take over." As an experienced union official, Hilliker must have realized that the Teamsters could not "take over" on April 1 unless Respondent Union had been displaced as collective-bargaining representative by a majority of the employees in the unit. It is also undisputed that at the afternoon meeting of March 29, George told Hart, with Hilliker present, that a "majority" of the employees had signed Teamsters cards. When asked what he understood George to mean when she told him on March 29 before negotiations could be undertaken by the Respondent Union he had to "reestablish" himself with the employees, Hilliker testified: "Having knowledge of this petition already, she meant I had to sell myself to the employees in order for them to continue representation with our organization." Finally, when asked why execution of the contract was rushed through during the evening of March 31, he testified: "The knowledge of the petition on this thing, and with reference to the Teamsters organization, it behooved us to get the contract signed within the expiration date, we were in the insulation period." IV. THE REMEDY 385 It having been found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. It will be recommended that the Respondent Employer be ordered to withdraw all recognition from the Respondent Union as the representative of its office employees, and that the Respondent Union be ordered to cease acting as such representative, unless and until the Respondent Union shall have demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the Respondent Employer's employees. It will also be recommended that the Respondent Employer be ordered to cease giving force and effect to, and that the Respondent Union be ordered to cease seeking to enforce, their collective-bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondent Employer to vary the wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive terms of employment, which the Respondent Employer has established in the performance of said contract, or to prejudice the assertion by its employees of any right that they may have thereunder. In addition, as it has been found that the aforesaid contract, contains a union-shop and checkoff provision, it will be recommended that both Respondents be required jointly and severally to reimburse those employees of the Respondent Employer who became members of the Union after the execution of said contract for moneys paid by them, if any, or deducted from their earnings, if any, for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership in the Respondent Union. Interest on such moneys at 6 percent per annum is to be paid in accord with the Board's decision in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, the amount of such interest to be computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of North America,138 NLRB 1142. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hart Motor Express, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By recognizing the Respondent Union as sole bargaining representative of its office employees, and executing a contract with it covering such employees, at a time when it did not represent the majority of such employees, and by maintaining such contract in effect, the Respondent Employer has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 4. By including in such contract a union-security clause, the Respondent Employer has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. 5. By executing and maintaining such contract in effect, the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and the foregoing 2 Respondent Employer, in its brief , makes no contention that it as collective-bargaining representative. Its sole defense rests on was without knowledge that Respondent Union had been ousted the Deluxe Metal insulated period doctrine. 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that: A. Respondent Hart Motor Express, Inc., of St. Paul, Minnesota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall be ordered to: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Contributing support to Respondent Union, or to any other labor organization of its employees. (b) Recognizing Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its office employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent Employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions or terms of employment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the Respondent Employer's office employees. (c) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent Union dated March 31, 1966, or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to require the Respondent Employer to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive term of employment established under such agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by a valid agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its office employees for the purposes of dealing with the Respondent Employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions or terms of employment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the Company's office employees. (b) Post at its plant and offices at St. Paul, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."3 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent Employer immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Employer to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (b) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the Respondent Union's notice herein marked "Appendix B." B. Respondent Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall be ordered to: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of the office employees of the Respondent Hart Motor Express, Inc., for the purpose of dealing with said Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, unless and until said Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the Respondent Employer's office employees. (b) Giving effect to its collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent Employer dated March 31, 1966, or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof. (c) Causing, or attempting to cause, the Respondent Employer to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by entering into, or maintaining, any agreement with the Respondent Employer which requires, as a condition of employment, membership in the Respondent Union, or in any like or related manner causing, or attempting to cause, the Respondent Employer to discriminate against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (d) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing the employees of Hart Motor Express, Inc., in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, 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 in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed by the Respondent Union representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the said Regional Director signed copies of Appendix B for posting by the Respondent Employer at its St. Paul terminal and offices, as provided above. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the said Regional Director, after being signed by the Respondent Union's representative, shall be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. C. Both Respondents shall be ordered to: 1. Jointly and severally reimburse those employees who became members of Respondent Union after execution of the contract of March 31, 1966, for initiation fees, dues, assessments , or other moneys if any, received by the Respondent Union in payment of their membership, obligations, together with interest thereon, as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." 2. Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by 'See fn 3 , supra. HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, as to what steps they have taken to comply herewith.5 5 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT assist or support Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or otherwise interfere with the representation of our employees through a labor organization of their own choosing. WE WILL NOT recognize said Local 12, or any successor thereto, as the exclusive representative of our office employees for dealing with us with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment, unless and until said Local 12 shall be certified by the Board after having demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among our employees in the appropriate unit. WE WILL NOT give effect to our collective- bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966, with said Local 12, or enter into or enforce any extension, renewal , modification, or supplement thereof, or any superseding collective-bargaining agreement with said Local 12; we are not required, however, to vary those wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive terms of employment established under such agreement, and our employees are free to assert any rights they may have thereunder. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL jointly and severally with said Local 12 reimburse those of our employees who became members of said Local 12 after the execution of the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966, for moneys paid by them, if any, or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments , or other obligations of membership in said Local 12. All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the above- named or any other labor organization, 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 in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 387 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal Building, 110 South fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Telephone 334-2618. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. 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 Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our members that: WE WILL NOT perform, enforce, or give effect to our collective-bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966, with Hart Motor Express, Inc., or enter into or enforce any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or any superseding collective-bargaining agreement, with Hart Motor Express, Inc., unless and until we shall have been certified by the Board after having demonstrated our exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among employees of Hart Motor Express, Inc., in the appropriate unit. WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the office employees of Hart Motor Express, Inc., unless and until we have been certified by the Board as such representative. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Hart Motor Express, Inc., to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by entering into or maintaining any agreement with that employer which requires as a condition of employment membership in our organization, or in any like or related manner cause, or attempt to cause, Hart Motor Express, Inc., to discriminate against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL jointly and severally with Hart Motor Express, Inc., reimburse those of its employees who became members of our organization after the execution of the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement of March 31, 1966, for moneys, if any paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership in our organization. OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HART MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 298-668 0-69-26 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days compliance with its provisions, they may communicate from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal or covered by any other material. Building 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota If persons have any question concerning this notice or 55401, Telephone 334-2618.