C. H. Heist Corp.

C. H. HEIST CORP. C. H. Heist Corp. and Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and Local Union Nos. 20 and 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Inc. Case 7-CA-7552 October 31, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On May 4, 1970, Trial Examiner Melvin Pollack issued his Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief were filed on behalf of Local Union No. 20, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Inc. 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 and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, C. H. Heist Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. MEMBER BROWN, dissenting in part: I would not find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain with Operating Engi- neers for a unit of employees working out of the Respondent's new sub-office at Wyandotte, Michi- gan. That office was initially staffed with employees from the Toledo area office and the work involved 355 was previously handled by employees in the area unit covered by a current union security contract with Teamsters Local 20, before Respondent's reorganiza- tion establishing the sub-office in the geographic territory of Teamster Local 337 with whom Respon- dent had also executed a contract. Thus, at the time of the demand for recognition and bargaining by Operating Engineers in September 1969, Respondent had colorable claims of accretion by the Teamsters. In the face of a claim by an outside union, such accretion claims raise a substantial question concerning repre- sentation. In these circumstances, and notwithstand- ing Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(2), I do not believe a bargaining order appropriate. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: This case was heard on March 10 and 11, 1970, at Detroit, Michigan, pursuant to a charge filed on October 1, 1969, and a complaint issued on December 31, 1969, and amended at the hearing. The complaint alleges that Respondent C. H. Heist Corp. illegally assisted and supported Local Union Nos. 20 and 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called Local 20 and Local 337, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and refused to bargain collectively with Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Operating Engineers, as the representative of its "hydro- jet" cleaning employees at its installation in Wyandotte, Michigan, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, oral argument presented at the hearing by the General Counsel,' and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a New York corporation which maintains facilities in New York, West Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio, is engaged in industrial cleaning by "hydro-jet" and sandblast processes, and in industrial painting. The unfair labor practices involved in this proceeding are alleged to have occurred at Respondent's installation in Wyandotte, Michigan, which received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from out-of-State sources during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969. Respondent during that same fiscal year performed services valued at over $50,000 to interstate concerns located in Michigan and also performed services in excess of $50,000 to interstate concerns located in States other than Michigan. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I The transcript of the oral argument is corrected pursuant to the stipulation of the parties 186 NLRB No. 57 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED maintenance work. They obtain supplies from each other occasionally. On September 4, 1969, the Wyandotte installation employed 10 hydro jet cleaners and helpers, each of whom had been hired in the Detroit area. These employees were paid at wage rates set by Superintendent Eley, who followed the wage rates in the July 1968 contract between Respondent and Local 20 "to the extent of a minimum." Eley testified that he grants raises more quickly than does Toledo. Leadmen received a 10-cent wage differential called for by the July 1968 contract. The Wyandotte employees received the same vacation and holiday benefits as the Toledo employees. B. Assistance and Support to Local 337 In late May or early June 1969, Respondent, by Attorney Marvin Breskin, advised Charles Nussmeier, business representative of Local 337, that Respondent was transfer- ring an operation in Toledo to the Detroit area and expected to transfer members of Local 20 to the jurisdiction of Local 337 in June or July.3 A few weeks later, Nussmeier and another officer of Local 337 met with Breskin, Superintendent Eley, and Vice President Louis Borins and negotiated a collective-bargaining contract covering the Wyandotte hydro jet cleaners and helpers, effective for a 3- year period beginning July 1, 1969.4 In August, Attorney Breskin told Nussmeier over the telephone that the Wyandotte employees at a job on Zug Island "were being cited as non-union by the Laborers Union and the Operating Engineers." He asked Nussmeier for "some method of identification." Nussmeier asked Breskin, "You are now transferring the people from Toledo to Detroit?" Breskin said "Yes" Nussmeier said he would like to "go through the contract with them" and Breskin said he would make arrangements for him to do so. Nussmeier said he would have transfer cards issued to the Wyandotte employees at Zug Island. He obtained their names and social security numbers from Superintendent Eley and had his office prepare transfer cards from Local 20 for them. He called Breskin and told him the cards were ready. Breskin picked the cards up at Local 337's office. The cards were handed to employees Brockmiller, McCandless, and Stewart, by Eley and pump foreman William Thacker. Nussmeier met with the Wyandotte employees on the morning of September 9.5 He said Local 337 was their bargaining agent because they had been transferred from the jurisdiction of Local 20. He explained the contract they would be operating under and asked them to sign applications for Local 337 membership. The employees advised Nussmeier that they were not transferees from Toledo and had signed cards for the Operating Engineers. On September 9 or 10, Nussmeier called Attorney Breskin, said he had been "conned," and repudiated the July 1, 1969, contract. representation by the Operating Engineers, "The Company is the one that writes out the paychecks and you will take what union we give you." 4 Nussmeier testified that he was shown a letter at this meeting from Local 20 authorizing the transfer of Toledo employees to be assigned to the Wyandotte operation from its jurisdiction to Local 337. S Respondent paid the employees for the time spent at this meeting at the Wyandotte facility. Locals 20 and 337, and the Operating Engineers, are labor organizations under Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Toledo and Wyandotte Installations Respondent maintains an installation at Toledo, Ohio. On July 25, 1968, Respondent and Local 20 executed a union-security contract covering all employees "working out of the Toledo, Ohio, division and engaged in `hydro jet' cleaning process" but excluding supervisors, office employ- ees, salesmen, and painters. The contract was to remain in effect until July 11, 1971, and specified the area to be served as "Northern Ohio, Southern Michigan including Detroit, Northern Indiana and contiguous territories." In October 1968, Clifford Biehl was the manager at Toledo and M. Lee Eley was the assistant manager. At this time, Toledo had six or seven pump trucks, three of which were regularly dispatched to the Detroit area to service Great Lakes Steel Corporation, Hanna Furnace, Edward C. Levy Company, and Detroit Edison Company. The Toledo employees who performed the Detroit area work usually returned to Toledo each day but on occasion remained overnight in Detroit. In November 1968, Respondent decided to establish a "sub-office" in the Detroit area. A temporary office was set up at a motel for Eley, who was appointed superintendent for the Detroit operation. Three pump trucks and auxiliary equipment were located at the motel. The hydro-jet employees during November and December 1968 consisted of experienced Toledo employees and men hired by Eley in the Detroit area. Eley, who had been subject to Biehl's supervision, early in January 1969 began to report directly to Andrew Crowe, Respondent's manager of operations at Buffalo, New York, as did Biehl. On January 25, 1969,2 Respondent acquired a building at Wyandotte, Michigan, for its Detroit opera- tions. By late March, the working force at Wyandotte was made up entirely of employees who lived in the Detroit area. Wyandotte had five pump trucks by April or May and added a sixth in June or July. The Wyandotte and Toledo installations, which are about the same size, help each other out "whenever they are overloaded to a point where they don't have the equipment or the manpower." Detroit personnel worked in the Toledo area 13 times between April 1969 and March 1970, and Toledo personnel worked in the Detroit area 22 times between January and June 1969. The employees wherever they work are paid at their regular rate by their own office. The Wyandotte and Toledo installations, which are about 60 miles apart, maintain separate office records and employee time books. Each installation performs its own 2 All dates hereafter are in 1969 unless otherwise noted. 3 In June, Pump Foreman William Thacker told William McCandless, a Wyandotte employee since March , that the employees would be going into a union "within a couple of weeks, most likely the Teamsters." McCandless said, "Nobody tells me how to vote." Thacker replied, "you will get the Union the company designates and if you don't like it you can take it up with the NLRB." Also in June, Superintendent Eley told McCandless and William Brockmiller, when the men brought up the matter of C. H. HEIST CORP. C. The Refusal To Bargain with the Operating Engineers Between August 29 and September 3, 1969, Business Representative Ronald Rama obtained cards authorizing the Operating Engineers as their collective-bargaining representative from 9 of the 10 hydro-jet cleaners and helpers employed at Wyandotte. On September 4, Rama asked Superintendent Eley for recognition and offered to show him the authorization cards. Eley referred Rama to Attorney Breskin. Later that day, F. Daniel Bohn, the Operating Engineers' attorney, called Breskin and told him the Operating Engineers had signed authorization cards from a majority of the Wyandotte employees. He requested bargaining but Breskin replied there was a "problem" because the Teamsters had a jurisdictional award and a contract. Bohn called Breskin again about September 15 and said he had read the case and did not believe it was a bar to Respondent's dealing with the Operating Engineers 6 Breskin replied that Respondent had a contract with the Teamsters which was a bar to any dealings with the Operating Engineers. Bohn said he did not believe Local 20 had territorial jurisdiction in Michigan. Breskin replied that Local 337 was administering the Local 20 contract "on some arrangement between the two locals." Bohn said the Local 20 contract "was not designed to cover a separate unit here" and requested recognition and collective bargaining. Breskin said he would contact Vice President Borins. Bohn called Breskin a week later. Breskin said Borins' position was that Respondent could not deal with the Operating Engineers because of its contract with Local 20. D. Assistance and Support to Local 20 The Operating Engineers filed the charge in this case on October 1, 1969. A few days later, Breskin met with the Wyandotte employees. He mentioned the Local 20 contract and told the employees that they would have to sign up with Local 20 or be out of work. Business Representative Irvin Mowry of Local 20 told five Wyandotte employees at a meeting at Wyandotte premises on October 29 that Local 20 had a union-security contract with Respondent and that they had a few days to sign membership cards or he would require Respondent to discharge them. Eley thereafter told the hydro jet employees that they had to sign Teamsters authorization cards or there would be no work for them. The employees on the advice of Attorney Bohn signed Local 20 cards, attached a statement that the cards were signed under threat of no work, and gave the cards and attachments to Eley. On November 4, Mowry sent a letter to Eley demanding enforcement of the union-security clause in the July 1968 contract, payment of union dues by the Wyandotte employees from the dates first due under the contract, and retroactive health and welfare payments by Respondent due under the contract for those employees. Respondent thereafter checked off union dues from the pay 6 The Board in a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under Section 10(b) of the Act determined on April 25, 1969, that the Toledo employees represented by Local 20 rather than a laborer's local were entitled to perform hydro-jet cleaning at the Ecorse, Michigan plant of Great Lakes Steel Corporation. Local Union No 334, Laborers International Union of 357 of the Wyandotte employees and made health and welfare payments for them, retroactive to the dates due under the July 1968 contract. E. Analysis and Conclusions 1. Assistance and support to Locals 20 and 337 Although none of the Wyandotte employees had authorized Local 337 to represent them, Respondent recognized Local 337 as their collective-bargaining agent,7 gave Local 337 cards to employees, executed a contract with Local 337, and paid the employees to attend a meeting with Business Representative Nussmeier at the Wyandotte premises. Nussmeier credibly testified that Respondent represented to him that the Wyandotte employees were Local 20 transferees and that he repudiated the contract with Respondent upon learning from them that they were not Teamsters members and had designated the Operating Engineers as their collective-bargaining representative. I find, accordingly, that Respondent by the conduct described above, assisted and supported Local 337, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Following Local 337's repudiation of its contract, and Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Operating Engineers, Respondent notified the Wyandotte employees that they were subject to the Local 20 contract and required them to become members of Local 20 as a condition of employment. In its answer to the complaint, Respondent contends in substance that the Wyandotte employees constitute an accretion to the unit covered by its union- security contract with Local 20 and hence that the contract applied to them at all relevant times. The Wyandotte facility is about 60 miles distant from the Toledo facility, has approximately the same number of employees, and has been independent of Toledo supervision since January 1969. Both facilities maintain separate office records and employee time cards, have their own equipment, procure their own supplies, and perform their own maintenance work. Some Toledo employees worked for Wyandotte for the first few months of its operation, but Wyandotte began the hiring of Detroit area workers in November 1968 and by late March 1969 all its employees lived in the Detroit area. Wyandotte and Toledo send crews and equipment to each other on an emergency basis, but the record shows no permanent exchange of employees between the two operations. Both employee groups, however, have identical skills, perform the same type of work, and, at all times, have had the same or similar vacations and holiday benefits. Wyandotte, however, has granted pay increases more readily than has Toledo. In these circumstances, and as Respondent's dealings with Local 337 indicate that it considered the contract with Local 20 no bar to separate representation of the Wyandotte employees, I find that the Wyandotte operation is essentially an autonomous unit in its day-to-day operations, that its employees constitute a North America, AFL-CIO, et at, 175 NLRB No. 103 7 Superintendent Eley and Pump Foreman Thacker told employees over their protests that they would be represented by a union selected by Respondent, probably the Teamsters. 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD separate appropriate unit, and that they are not an accretion to the Local 20 contract units Moreover, even assuming the Toledo and Wyandotte employees may be appropriately represented in a single bargaining unit, I find that the Wyandotte employees would not be subject to the Local 20 contract without having had an opportunity to determine for themselves whether or not they wished to be represented by Local 20. Melbet Jewelry Co., Inc., 180 NLRB No. 24. As the Wyandotte employees are appropriately repre- sented in a separate bargaining unit, and as Local 20 at no relevant time represented an uncoerced majority of these employees, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing Local 20 as their collective-bargaining representative and by requiring them to become members of Local 20 as a condition of employment pursuant to the union-security provisions of the Local 20 contract. Cf. Schreiber Trucking Company, Inc., 148 NLRB 697, 702-703; Masters-Lake Success, Inc., 124 NLRB 580, 592-593. bargaining demand, I find that its refusal to bargain was violative of Section 8(a)(5). Sturgeon Electric Co., Inc., 166 NLRB 210; Centac Corp., 179 NLRB No. 46. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Locals 20 and 337 and the Operating Engineers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the acts and conduct herein found violative of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(axl), (2), and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Tim REMEDY 2. The refusal to bargain with the Operating Engineers I have found that the Wyandotte hydro jet employees constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, and the record establishes that the Operating Engineers represented 9 of the 10 employees in the bargaining unit when that labor organization, in September 1969, requested recognition and contract negotiations. Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Operating Engineers on the ground that Local 20 had a jurisdictional award and a contract covering these employees. As previously found, neither the award nor the contract established Local 20 as the bargaining representative of the Wyandotte employees. I find further that Respondent's asserted reason for refusing to bargain with the Operating Engineers was insubstantial and not made in good faith. Despite the contract and the Board's jurisdiction award, Respondent showed Business Repre- sentative Nussmeier a letter from Local 20 giving Local 337 jurisdiction over Toledo employees to be transferred to Wyandotte and negotiated a contract with Local 337. It applied the union-security, dues-checkoff, and health and welfare provisions of the Local 20 contract to the Wyandotte employees only after Local 337 repudiated its contract and the Operating Engineers requested recogni- tion and bargaining. I find from these facts that Respon- dent's claim that the Wyandotte employees were covered by the Local 20 contract did not give rise to a genuine question concerning representation which justified Respon- dent in refusing to honor the Operating Engineers' bargaining demand. Cf. Centac Corp., 179 NLRB No. 46. As Respondent did not challenge the Operating Engi- neers' majority status based on authorization cards, did not assert any valid basis for its refusal to bargain with the Operating Engineers, and gave Locals 20 and 337 illegal assistance and support despite the Operating Engineers' Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Operating Engineers first requested recognition and bargaining on September 4, 1969. Respondent nevertheless paid its employees to attend a meeting on September 9 with Business Representative Nussmeier of Local 337. After Nussmeier learned that the Wyandotte employees were not Teamsters members and repudiated the Local 337 contract, Respondent persisted in its refusal to bargain with the Operating Engineers, applied the Local 20 contract to the Wyandotte employees, and required them to become Local 20 members as a condition of employment. Respondent's conduct demonstrates its strong opposition to dealing with the Operating Engineers, tends to undermine the Operating Engineers' majority status, and precludes the holding of a fair election. I shall therefore recommend a bargaining order which I find is required not only to remedy Respondent's refusal to bargain, but also to remedy Respondent's unlawful assistance and support to Locals 20 and 337. Centac Corp., 179 NLRB No. 46. I shall further recommend that Respondent reimburse the Wyandotte employees for any dues, initiation fees, and other moneys checked off or paid by them pursuant to Respondent's contract with Local 20, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Respondent, C. H. Heist Corp., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its Wyandotte, Michigan hydro jet 8 The Local 20 contract covers employees "working out of the Toledo, Corporation, the Board awarded the disputed work at that plant to the Ohio, division," and includes Southern Michigan and Detroit in the area to employees represented at that time by Local 20. The award was based upon be served. In its jurisdictional dispute decision of April 25 , 1969 (supra, ftn. evidence adduced at a hearing held on October 9 and 10, 1968, before the 6), finding inter alia that the contract was "regular on its face" and establishment of the Wyandotte operation . The Board, accordingly, did not specifically covered the Ecorse, Michigan, plant of Great Lakes Steel have before it the accretion issue in the present case. C. H. HEIST CORP. cleaning employees with loss of employment if they do not become members of Local 20 or Local 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Inc. (b) Permitting Local 20 or Local 337, or any of its agents, to solicit its Wyandotte employees to sign membership cards or to conduct other union business at its Wyandotte installation, or paying its Wyandotte employees to attend meetings with such agents. (c) Recognizing Local 337 or Local 20 as the representa- tive of the Wyandotte "hydro jet" cleaning employees until after it has first complied with the provisions of this Order requiring it to bargain with Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and thereafter unless and until either of said labor organizations shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of such employees. (d) Giving effect to its July 1, 1969, collective-bargaining contract with Local 337, or applying its July 25, 1968, contract with Local 20 to the Wyandotte hydro jet cleaning employees; provided that nothing herein shall require Respondent to vary employment conditions established through these contracts. (e) In any other manner, assisting and supporting Local 20, Local 337, or any other labor organization. (f) Failing or refusing to bargain collectively, upon request, with Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of its hydro jet cleaning employees at its installation at Wyandotte, Michigan. (g) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of its hydro jet cleaning employees at Wyandotte, Michigan. (b) Withdraw and withhold recognition of Locals 20 or 337 as the bargaining representative of its Wyandotte employees, and revoke its collective-bargaining agreement with Local 20 insofar as it affects those employees. (c) Reimburse the Wyandotte hydro jet cleaning employ- ees who became members of Local 20 in accordance with Respondent's July 25, 1968, contract with Local 20, for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership in Local 20, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll and personnel records and all other data necessary to analyze and compute the moneys due under the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its Wyandotte, Michigan, installation copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are 359 customarily posted, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10 9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 10 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from LOCAL 20 and Local 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America unless and until either of them is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as your collective- bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT permit Local 20 or Local 337 to hold meetings with employees or recruit members in our plant. WE WILL NOT apply to our Wyandotte employees our contract with Local 20 for our Toledo employees. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you because you do not join Local 20 or Local 337. WE WILL NOT contribute support to Local 20 or Local 337 in any other manner. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to self-organization under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL bargain collectively with Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of all our hydro jet cleaning employees working out of our Wyandotte, Michigan, place of business, exclusive of office clerical employees, professional employees, salesmen, technical employees, guards, and supervisors. If an understanding is reached, we will embody the understanding in a signed agreement. WE WILL reimburse our employees for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of member- ship in Local 20. 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. H. HEIST CORP. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days (Employer) from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Dated By Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with (Representative) (Title) its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, This is an official notice and must not be defaced by Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200. anyone.