Suburban Homes Corp.

SUBURBAN HOMES CORP. Suburban Homes Corporation and Local Union 3000, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and Lake County, Indiana, District Council of Carpenters, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO . Case 25-CA-2717 October 3 1, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On July 11, 1968, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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. The Trial Exam- iner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to those allegations. There- after, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, the General Counsel also filed a reply 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-mem- ber 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 entire record in the case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and supporting briefs, and the reply brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam- iner, as modified herein. Although finding that Respondent violated the Act by virtue of Supervisor Mertz" solicitation of sig- natures to the deauthorization document by which the employee signatories repudiated the Union, the Trial Examiner refused to find a violation in Mertz' 1 Upon consideration of the entire record before us , including the evidence taken in the decertification proceeding , the Regional Director's decision in that case , and the testimony in this unfair labor practice proceeding , we agree with the Trial Examiner that Mertz was a supervisor under the Act. We believe that the determination of Mertz' status by the Regional Director for purposes of the decertification proceeding did not preclude Respondent from litigating the supervisory issue when , in this unfair labor practice proceeding, it was charged with interfering with employee rights because of Mertz' conduct . We find, therefore , that the Trial Examiner was correct in his ruling at the 173 NLRB No. 80 497 subsequent filing of the decertification petition. He was influenced in the latter connection by such considerations as that the Board "has zealously safeguarded access by all persons to its procedures for the protection of their rights" and "public interest requires unimpeded access to it". We agree, of course, that it should be thus, but only where resort to the Board is in good faith for the purpose of vindicating a right thought to be guaranteed by the Act, or for any other legitimate purpose for which the Act was designed. Unimpeded access to the Board could not be in the public interest if it served to provide immunity to the employer who filed a decertification petition intended to frustrate and obstruct the col- lective-bargaining process which the Act seeks to promote. Clearly, the decertification petition filed by Respondent's supervisor was but the final step in an unlawful plan designed to oust the Union as bar- gaining representative of the employees. The filing, therefore, was, like the solicitation of signatures to the deauthorization document which was filed with it, a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Suburban Homes Corpora- tion, Valparaiso, Indiana, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified herein- 1. Add the following paragraph as paragraph 1(b) to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order this paragraph 1(b) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively relettered: "(b) Seeking to decertify Local Union 3000, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Lake County, Indiana, District Council of Carpenters affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, jointly, as the exclusive representative of its employees in order to avoid its bargaining obligation." 2. Add the following to the first indented para- graph of the notice after the words "to do so again.": hearing permitting the litigation of Mertz' supervisory status. See Stanley Air Tools, Division of The Stanley Works, 171 NLRB No. 48. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S 146, cited by the Trial Examiner to support his present position on this relitigabihty issue is a distinguishable case. The Court 's "really one " case comment was made with reference to the unit finding in the representation proceeding and the subsequent refusal to bargain complaint case based on this unit finding. 2 Wahoo Packing Company, 161 NLRB 174. 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nor shall we sanction the filing of any decertifica- tion petition by a supervisor whose purpose is to oust the bargaining representative of our em- ployees. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION SIDNEY D.GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner The decision in this case turns on whether Respondent's employee, Roy E. Mertz, was a supervisor when he solicited and obtained the signatures of his fellow employees to a document rescinding the Union's authority to represent them and filed a decertification petition with the Board. This is the critical issue because Respondent concedes that it relied solely upon this deauthorization movement in claiming a good-faith doubt of the Union's status as bargaining representative and its consequent refusal to bargain. An important subsidiary question is whether Re- spondent may relitigate, in this case, the Regional Director's determination of the issue in the decertification proceeding. The complaint herein' alleges that Suburban Homes Corpo- ration (herein called Respondent or the Company), through its agent, Foreman Roy E Mertz, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), by soliciting their signatures to a document with- drawing their membership in Local Union 3000, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (herein called Local 3000), and rescinding the authority of Local 3000 and the Lake County, Indiana, District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the District Council),2 to enter into a collective-bargaining agreement as their representative and by filing, through Mertz, a decertification petition with the Board on the basis of this document; it also alleges that Respondent is refusing to bargain with the Charging Parties (herein called, when acting jointly on behalf of Respondent's employees, the Union), notwith- standing their status as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in an appropriate unit. Respondent answered, admitting that the unit alleged was an appropriate one for collective-bargaining purposes and that the Union had previously been the representative of its employees in that unit It also admitted, that since March 13, 1967, it had refused to bargain claiming, however, to have a good-faith doubt concerning the representative status of the Union, based upon the deauthorization movement and the decertification petition, and it denied that Mertz was a supervisory employee or its agent. The issue so raised was tried before me at Valparaiso, Indiana, on December 20, 1967. All parties were represented, afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to argue on the facts and the law. Briefs were thereafter filed by the General Counsel and by counsel for Respondent and they have been considered For the reasons hereinafter set forth in detail, I find that Roy E. Mertz was a supervisory employee of Respondent-in- espondent in January January 1967, and acted as its agent when he sponsored the deauthorization movement and filed the decertification pe- tition, that Respondent was not justified in relying on these documents for its claimed good-faith doubt concerning the Union's representative status and that it has unlawfully refused to bargain. Upon the entire record herein,3 and upon the demeanor of the witnesses,4 I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE EMPLOYER Respondent is an Indiana corporation engaged in the manufacture and construction of prefabricated homes It operates a manufacturing plant at Valparaiso, Indiana. It admits that it annually imports materials valued at more than $50,000 and that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Local Union 3000 is a local of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Lake County, Indiana, District Council of Carpenters is also a subsidiary organization of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Local 3000 and the District Council are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE With the exception of matters relating to the nature of the duties of Roy E Mertz which tend to reflect on his status as a supervisory or nonsupervisory employee, the facts in this case are not in dispute. A. Background On March 18, 1959, Local 3000 and the Company entered into a collective-bargaining contract covering company em- ployees, but only those who were members of that Local. The contract was for 1 year from its date and, in the absence of timely notice of termination, from year to year thereafter A subsequent contract, dated November 20, 1964, covering the period December 1, 1964, to November 30, 1965, and, in the absence of notice of termination, also continuing from year to year, was entered into between the Company and "Lake County Carpenters District Council as agent of L. U. 3000, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America." By this contract, however, the Company recognized this signatory as the "sole and exclusive bargaining representative for the Company's Prefabricating Plant employees." The last contract, executed March 24, 1966, but covering the period December 1, 1965, to December 31, 1966, was signed in the same manner and covered the same employees. I Issued September 29, 1967, on a charge filed January 27 , 1967. 4 The record in Case 25 -RD-216, involving the same issue, was 2 The charge was filed by these two labor organizations , jointly , and received in evidence and the testimony in that case is considered herein the caption of this case is amended accordingly . as if given before me Since all the witnesses in the representation case 3 Typographical errors in the transcript of testimony have been testified before me on substantially the same subjects , I am enabled to corrected as set forth in my order dated March 25, 1968 judge their credibility as witnesses both on the basis of their entire testimony and their demeanor while testifying SUBURBAN HOMES CORP. 499 B. Chronology C. The Issues On the basis of a contract termination notice given early in December 1966 representatives of the Local and the District Council met with representatives of Respondent and of two other employers engaged in similar operations. The partici- pants hoped to create, if possible, a multiemployer bargaining unit and a single collective-bargaining contract. The negotia- tions appear to have foundered on a dispute over the nature or scope of the employers' operation and, when the talks recessed at the end of December, they were not resumed. On January 10, 1967, Roy E. Mertz brought a typewritten document out to one of the work tables, laid it down, and announced that all who desired could sign it. The document stated that "the undersigned" were all prefabricating plant employees, members of Local 3000, and in the bargaining unit covered by the contract between Respondent and the Local which had expired December 31, 1966; that no new agreement had been signed and that they desired to rescind the authority of Local 3000 and its agent, the District Council, to enter into a new agreement with Respondent on their behalf but, on the contrary, wished to withdraw from membership in Local 3000 and to bargain directly with Respondent. All 14 employees, including Roy E. Mertz, signed it. Shortly thereafter he mailed this document, with an executed petition for the decertifica- tion of Local 3000,5 to the Board's Regional Office, where it was filed on January 13. On January 27 the charge in this case was filed by the Union and, on March 10 the Union, through counsel, made a written request that Respondent meet to bargain. On March 31, Respondent replied, stating that it could not meet to negotiate because it had "good-faith" doubts as to whether the Union represented a majority of the employees in the prefabricating plant. On May 10, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing on the decertification petition and a hearing was held on June 1. The Union, the Employer, and Petitioner Mertz were all represented by counsel; testimony was given by Mertz, by employees Lawrence F. Pennell and Ray Pierce, and by Respondent's vice president, Ted U. Biggs . All parties at the hearing agreed that the sole issue was the status of Mertz; that, if he was a supervisor when he filed the petition, it was insufficient for its purpose and would have to be dismissed. The Regional Director's Decision, issued July 19, found that Mertz was a supervisor and, therefore, disqualified from filing the petition. Accordingly, he granted the Union's motion to dismiss it. No appeal was taken from this Decision and Order. The complaint herein was issued September 29, 1967. Respondent's answer claims a good-faith doubt of the Union's representative status, based solely on the deauthorization document and the decertification petition. The parties agree that the sole major issue is the supervisory status of Roy E. Mertz; that if he is a supervisor, Respondent could not base a good-faith doubt of the Union's representa- tive status on the deauthorization document which he solicited or the decertification petition which he filed and Respondent's refusal to bargain is violative of the Act. A preliminary issue of law is whether Respondent was entitled, in this case, to relitigate the status of Mertz or whether the Regional Director's Decision is the law of this case. D. Discussion and Findings 1. Relitigability This problem involves the application of Section 102.67 (f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Failure to request review shall preclude such parties from relitigating, in any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceeding. It is obvious that, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this regulation should be observed. In several decisions by the courts and the Board, the effectiveness of this regulation has been limited, on the basis of the word "related," to unfair labor cases involving an employer's refusal to bargain with a certified union based upon a claim of invalidity of the certification 6 It was on the basis of these cases that I ruled, at the hearing, that the Regional Director's Decision did not preclude relitigation of the issue. Accordingly, I accepted as evidence both the record and the Regional Director's Decision in the representation proceeding, but I permitted the General Counsel and Respondent to adduce further evidence on the issue. Upon reflection, I have concluded that my ruling was in error: that this unfair labor practice case must be regarded as one which is "related" to the representation proceeding within the meaning of these decisions and that the parties hereto are precluded by the Board's Rules from relitigating the Regional Director's Decision that Roy E. Mertz was a supervisor. Statutory and judicial support for the application of the Board's regulation precluding relitigation, in an unfair labor practice case, of issues previously determined in a "related" representation proceeding, is found in Section 9(c) and (d) of the Act and in the decision of the Supreme Court in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146. In that case the Court, rejecting the employer's claim that the Board had erred in refusing to receive, in the unfair labor practice case, evidence on the subject of appropriate unit similar to that in the record in the representation proceeding, made its much 5 Neither Local 3000 nor the District Council has been certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining representative of these employees of Respondent but the petition was filed, pursuant to Section 9(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, on the basis of Respondent 's subsisting recognition of the Union. 6 Amalgamated Clothing Workers v . N.L.R.B. [Sagamore Shirt Company], 365 F.2d 898 (C.A.D.C., 1966); Heights Funeral Home, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 385 F.2d 879 (C.A. 5, 1967); South Bay Daily Breeze, 160 NLRB 1850, 1853; Stanley Air Tools, 171 NLRB No. 48. It is to be noted that in most of these cases the issues of supervisory status resolved in the representation proceedings were incidental to the major function of those proceedings in determining a collective -bargaining representative in an appropriate unit. Rulings on these issues, moreover, customarily affect merely the right of the involved employees to vote: they are often affected by the views of the parties involved in the election and are frequently resolved on a practical, or even on a quid pro quo, basis. 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quoted statement that "the unit proceeding and this complaint 2. Interference, restraint, and coercion on unfair labor practices are really one," (page 158) and it set forth in the margin, as justification for this statement, Section 9(c) and (d) of the Act. Although Section 9(c) is now much more extensive in its language than it was when quoted by the Supreme Court, it nevertheless then dealt, and now deals, with the procedure for Board certification-now, also, decertifica- tion-of a collective-bargaining representative Section 9(d), which provides that in court proceedings to enforce the Board's order in any unfair labor practice case founded upon a Section 9(c) proceeding, the case record shall include the record in the Section 9(c) proceeding, remains unchanged It was, in other words, this statutory scheme for court review of the decision in the representation proceeding which justified the Board's refusal to permit relitigation of vital issues and impelled the Court to make its "really one" comment. The representation proceeding involved herem, which had as its sole function the inquiry into and determination of the supervisory status of Roy E. Mertz, was one initiated under Section 9(c) of the Act in that the petition was filed: (A) by an employee ... alleging that a substantial number of employees ... (u) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representa- tive, is no longer a representative as defined in Section 9(a) and the record and decision therein must, in accordance with the mandate of Section 9(d), accompany the record supporting any finding of an unfair labor practice based upon it. For these reasons, I conclude that the unfair labor practice case now before me is one "related" to the representation proceeding within the meaning of Section 102.67(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The status of Roy E. Mertz, at the time of the execution of the deauthorization document and the filing of the decertification petition, was the sole issue in that proceeding and was fully litigated therein. The Regional Director found that Mertz was, at those times, a supervisory employee and, therefore, disqualified from filing the petition. His order dismissing the petition was based upon that finding and I am precluded, in my opinion, from ignoring or reviewing his Decision 7 7 There was no contention that any of the evidence adduced before me was newly discovered or previously unavailable Having read both records, I find that none of it was. 8 If not foreclosed from independent consideration of this issue by the Board 's Rules, I would similarly find, on the basis of all the evidence in both the representation proceeding and this case , that Mertz was a supervisor . My finding would be based upon the testimony of both Babcock and Biggs that Mertz was authorized to, and did, transfer employees from job to job, albeit temporarily , as necessary to assure productivity and quality in the prefabricating plant The attempt by Babcock to minimize the effect of his pretrial statement I find unconvincing , and I find that Mertz did exercise this function. Babcock's effort to downgrade Mertz' functions by calling him a "floater" is inconsistent with the evidence that the plant contained two men so labeled whose function it was to move from place to place. Babcock also admitted that he had consulted Mertz on whether particular employees deserved raises and he was unable to state that he had ever granted a raise in the face of Mertz' disagreement . I would also take into account Babcock 's testimony that he spends three-fourths of his time in his office at the drafting table and note that, unless Mertz had some supervisory functions , during this time 13 men would be without shop-wide supervision and the shop would be without any In accordance with the foregoing discussion, I find, on the basis of the Regional Director's Decision, that in January 1967 Roy E. Mertz was a supervisory employee of Respondent8 and acted as its agent, and that his conduct in soliciting the signatures of nonsupervisory employees in the unit to the deauthorization document constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of those employees in their exercise of rights under the Act and an unfair labor practice violative of Section 8(a)(1)thereof.9 The complaint alleges that Respondent's filing, through Mertz, of the decertification petition with the Board also constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The cases cited by the General Counsel in support of this allegation hold, as I do here, that an employer violates the section when, through a supervisory employee, it sponsors or procures employee signatures on a document repudiating union adherence. None of these cases holds that the filing of a document with the Board constitutes a violation of the Act and I have been unable to find any. The Board has zealously safeguarded access by all persons to its procedures for protection of their rights and the courts have supported it 10 However lacking in merit may be an application to the Board, public interest requires unimpeded access to it and the filing of the petition may not be condemned as violative of the Act. Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint msofar as it alleges a violation of the Act in the filing of the decertification petition. 3. The refusal to bargain Respondent concedes that, immediately prior to Mertz' circulation of the deauthorization document and the filing of the decertification petition, the Union was the representative of the employees in the prefabricating plant. It also concedes that these documents constitute the sole basis for its claim to a good-faith doubt concerning the Union's representative status and its consequent refusal to bargain The finding that Mertz was a supervisory employee and, therefore, an agent of the Respondent committing an unfair means of adjusting the work force to meet the unequal progress admittedly made from time to time by the several crews. I would also rely on the testimony of the witness Pennell, in whose credibility both the Regional Director and Respondent 's vice president expressed confidence, when he stated it to be his impression that ". . he (Mertz) was the shop foreman . Everybody was supposed to know it." I would also rely on the accepted testimony of several employees that Mertz succeeded to the duties of Dickinson who, Biggs admitted, was "in charge . . to a degree ." I construe this statement of Biggs, in the light of his interest in the outcome of this case and his evasiveness in answering questions, as a characterization of Dickinson as a supervisor. For the foregoing reasons, I would find that Mertz was authorized to, and did, responsibly direct other employees , exercising his independent judgment and that he was, as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, a supervisor (See Ross Porta-Plant, Inc. 166 NLRB No. 40, Big Ben Department Stores, 160 NLRB 1925, 1936-38, enfd.396 F 2d 78 (C.A. 2). 9 Red Cross Rexall Drug Stores, Inc, 169 NLRB No . 89, Big Ben Department Stores, Inc., supra, Hex ton Furniture Company, 111 NLRB 342. 10 See the decision of the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbldg. Workers, etc., 391 U.S. 418. SUBURBAN HOMES CORP. 501 labor practice when he obtained the signatures of the employees in the unit to the deauthorization of the Union, destroys the validity of that document as a basis for Respondent's claimed good-faith doubt of the Union's repre- sentative status. Its unlawful action, whatever may have been the factual result thereof, i.e., even if the men felt that they were voluntarily repudiating the Union, cannot be used as a basis for a claim of doubt concerning the Union's status.'' Since the Union was, concededly, the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's prefabricating plant em- ployees' 2 before Respondent's commission of the unfair labor practice, Respondent continues to be under a statutory obligation to bargain with it and its refusal to do so violates Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Moreover, Respondent's conduct in soliciting its employees to withdraw their authorizations of the Union to represent them was inconsistent with its duty to bargain with the Union and also violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.i 3 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among 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 Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, including the posting of an appropriate notice, to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and notify its employees accordingly. Having found that Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, the designated representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended that Respondent bargain with the Union and, if agreement is reached, embody such agreement in a signed contract. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I reach the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local Union 3000, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Lake County, Indiana, District Council of Carpenters, affiliated with United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All prefabricating plant employees (shop carpenters) of Suburban Homes Corporation, exclusive of office clerical employees, sales employees, janitors, guards, and all super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein the above-mentioned labor organizations, acting jointly, have been the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees of Suburban Homes Corporation, in the unit described above, for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 5 By refusing to bargain with the above labor organiza- tions as the collective-bargaining representative for the em- ployees in the said unit, and by soliciting the employees in the said unit to sign a document deauthorizing the above-named labor organizations to act as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative, Suburban Homes Corporation has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By refusing to bargain as aforesaid and by soliciting the employees in its prefabricating plant to sign a document deauthorizing the above-named labor organizations to act as their collective-bargaining representative, Suburban Homes Corporation has interfered with, restrained, and coerced those employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in the Act and has committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The above-described unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Suburban Homes Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Soliciting or urging employees in its prefabricating plant to resign from membership in any labor organization or withdraw their authorization of any labor organization to represent them for collective-bargaining purposes. (b) Failing or refusing to bargain collectively with Local Union 3000, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Lake County, Indiana, District Coun- cil of Carpenters affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, jointly as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit consisting of its prefabricating plant employees (shop carpenters), ex- 1 I Franks Bros. Company v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S.702. 12 The unit set forth in the complaint is substantially the same as that described in the contract which expired December 31, 1966, and, with the elimination of language necessarily added to formulate an allegation , is as follows- All prefabricating plant employees (shop carpenters), exclusive of office clerical employees , sales employees , janitors, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the act. Respondent 's answer admits this allegation of the complaint and I find that the foregoing constitutes a unit of employees appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 13 Bradford Dyeing Association , 4 NLRB 605, 616, enfd . 310 U.S. 318, 340 , Mitchell Concrete Products Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 504, 506, Wings & Wheels, Inc., 139 NLRB 578, 582 , enfd . 324 F.2d 495 (C.A. 3). 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clusive of office clerical employees, sales employees, janitors, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the said or any other labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended- (a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the above-named labor organizations, jointly, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit described in paragraph 1(b) hereof, with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if agreement is reached, embody the same in a written contract. (b) Post at its principal place of business in Valparaiso, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Suburban Homes Corporation, shall 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 After a trial, in which all parties had an opportunity to present their evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board has found that we have done certain things which constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice so that you may know your rights under the Act in connection with the situation involved in the case Roy E. Mertz was one of our supervisory employees when he solicited the signatures of employees in the prefabricating plant to the document withdrawing their authorizations of Local Union 3000, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and its bargaining representative, Lake County, Indiana, District Council of Carpenters, as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative, and he did so on our behalf. WE WILL NOT permit him, or any of our other supervisory employees or agents, to do so again. WE WILL, if requested by the said labor organizations, bargain with them, or either of them, as the collective- bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit. All prefabricating plant employees (shop carpenters), exclusive of office clerical employees, sales employees, janitors, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended WE WILL, if agreement is reached, embody that agree- ment in a signed contract. All of our employees in our prefabricating plant are free to remain members of either of the said labor organizations, or to cease to remain members thereof, except insofar as such right may be affected by an agreement requiring such membership, consistent with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are SUBURBAN HOMES not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. CORPORATION (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, (Employer) within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 5 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Exarruner 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. 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct- ly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 633-8921. 14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In 15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a Board , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United Director for Region 25, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."