Art Bridges Auto Emporium South

SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS 629 San Leandro Imports, d/b/a Art Bridges Auto Emporium South and Automobile Salesmen's Local 1095 Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO and Southern Alameda County Auto Salesmen's Association, Party to the Con- tract. Case 20-CA-4578 November 7, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On August 1, 1968, Trial Examiner Maurice Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, 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, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief and the General Counsel 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 and briefs, and the entire record in this 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, San Leandro Imports, d/b/a Art Bridges Auto Emporium South, Hayward, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. December 22, 1966, among the employees in a unit composed of the four salesmen then employed by Respondent at its used car lot in Hayward, California (hereafter referred to as South Lot). The four employees voted for the Union, which was certified on January 6, 1967. On December 21, 1967, the Regional Director issued a complaint' alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by dominating the Union, by interfering with the formation or administration of the Union, or by contributing unlawful aid, assistance or other support to the Union. Simultaneously, the Regional Director instituted a proceeding to consider revocation of the Union's certification, and issued an order consolidating such proceeding with that initiated by the complaint. In that order, the Regional Director requested that the Trial Examiner make recommendations as to the validity and disposition of the Union's certification. In its answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. The pivotal issue is whether or not one Brett Holsten was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The consolidated proceedings were heard on April 11, 1968, pursuant to due notice. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses, and consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS' 1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence Art Bridges is the president of five California corporations which own and operate automobile dealerships in the San Francisco Bay area, including Respondent which operates South Lot, and another corporation which operates North Lot. Prior to his employment at South Lot, Brett Holsten worked as a salesman at North Lot. In May or June 1966, he was transferred at his request to South Lot. At that time, the sales manager of South Lot was one Cummings. About July 1, 1966, he was replaced by Holsten, but remained in Respond- ent's employ at South Lot.3 In addition, two other salesmen, Ponas and Luce, were then employed at that lot. By the last week of November, 1966, Ponas and Cummings had left, and Employee Childers had been transferred from North to South Lot at Holsten's request. On November 22, 1966, Local 1095, the Charging Party, was picketing South Lot because the lot was kept open for business on Sundays. Holsten testified that on that date, Bridges gave him a piece of paper, which was introduced in evidence, bearing the following information: TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner: On November 28, 1966, Southern Alameda County Auto Salesmen's Associa- tion (hereafter called the Union) filed a petition for certification as collective-bargaining representative of Respon- dent's sales employees. Pursuant to an Agreement for Consent Election approved December 14, 1966, an election was held on I Based upon a charge filed on June 16, 1967, by Automobile Salesmen's Local 1095, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. 'No issue of commerce is presented. The complaint alleges and the answer admits facts which , I find, establish that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's answer further admits, and I find , that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3 Holsten 's status as sales manager is discussed below. 173 NLRB No. 98 630 DECISIONS OF Andrew Field c/o Angell, Adams, Gouchnauer & Holmes 200 Bush St., S.F. 981-1050 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He further testified that at the same time, Bridges said to him, "This is a man that can help you form your own union", and that "this was a good chance to get 1095 from picketing us on Sunday." Bridges testified that he neither encouraged Holsten to join Local 1095 nor to establish an independent union; that Holsten later informed him that the employees had formed the Union,' that he did not know Andrew Field; that on one occasion when he answered the telephone at South Lot, the caller identified himself as Andrew Field and asked for Holsten; that Bridges wrote Field's name on a piece of paper but did not include the firm name and address because Holsten had just then entered the premises; and that he gave the paper to Holsten. On the same day, November 22, at Holsten's request, Employee Daugherty was transferred from North to South Lot. Next morning, November 23, 1966, Holsten met with Employees Childers, Daugherty and Luce, proposed formation of the Union, and explained that he thought they could thereby obtain a good contract from Bridges and could stop the picketing.' A few days thereafter, Holsten again urged the salesmen to form their own union and they then went to the law office of Andrew Field, with whom Holsten had made an appointment. At Field's office, Holsten and Daugherty were respectively elected president and secretary-treasurer of the Union. Shortly after Thanksgiving Day of 1966, Childers was transferred back to North Lot at Holsten's request, and Employee Whitfield requested and received a transfer from North to South Lot. At the time of the transfer, Bridges told the latter that "they [South Lot employees] were going to go union and in order for [Whitfield] to work there [he] would have to be a member of it."6 As noted, the Union filed its petition for certification on November 28, 1966. On the day before the Board election scheduled for December 22, 1966, Holsten met with Daugherty, Luce and Whitfield, expressed his support of the Union, and stated that he would protect their interests in floor assignments and in signing a contract with Bridges. At the election, four votes were cast for the Union.7 On or about December 28, 1966, Bridges gave Holsten sample contracts to study. Holsten discussed them with the Union's members, they made certain changes, and several days later he returned them to Bridges, who indicated that the changes seemed to be satisfactory except in minor respects. 4Bridges testified that upon receiving such information , he called a meeting of his South Lot salesmen , and angrily told them that their actin was "unfair and unappreciative." Luce testified that Holsten said they could obtain a contract at least equal to that of Local 1095 and would be able to work Sundays and nights , which included some of their best selling hours. 6Whitfield so testified. He also contradicted himself by testifying that Bridges had merely told him that he had heard that the South Lot employees were either going to join Local 1095 or form their own The Union was certified on January 6, 1967.8 By letter dated January 10, 1967, Holsten requested Bridges to enter into negotiations, but received no answer. During February Hess, a former employee, was rehired at South Lot. That day Holsten told him in the presence of employees Daugherty, Luce and Whitfield that he "would have to join" the Union. By letter dated February 14, 1967, Holsten requested Bridges to meet with him on February 19 to discuss a contract. A meeting was not held until a week later, at which time they discussed and reached agreement upon a pay raise for a lot boy, and arranged for a further meeting on March 3, 1967. On the latter date, Bridges and his public relations manager, Kasgard, met with Holsten, who gave them certain written proposed contract changes, and they discussed the renumer- ation of the salesmen and the adequacy of Respondent's medical plan. No permanent agreement was reached, but they made a temporary agreement pending another meeting on April 1, 1967. The meeting, however, was not held, for on or about March 20, 1967, Bridges discharged Holsten. On cross examination by Counsel for Respondent, Holsten testified as follows: Q. (By Mr. Murdock) Do you know whether or not your discharge related to any problems arising out of these negotiations that you were conducting as president of the Southern Alameda County - A. I felt they were. Q. You felt that because you were representing the salesmen's association that is why Mr. Bridges discharged you? A. Right. Q. Did he indicate to you in any way that that was the reason? A. Yes. His action on the 19th of February. He come in with a frown on his face. He was nasty. The reason that he showed there was because he answered my letter. And his attitude on the 3rd of March-I think from the 19th he didn't say a word to me for three or four days. Never called. The 3rd of March I think his attitude was a stall. I think right about then he decided to change managers. Luce, Hess, and Whitfield all testified that they believed that Holsten had faithfully and diligently represented the Union. A few days after Holsten was fired, Bridges also discharged Hess, Luce and Daugherty. Shortly prior to the discharges, three new salesmen had been lured. Following the discharges, Whitfield, the only member of the Union still employed at South Lot, telephoned Attorney Field, asked him what to do, was given advice, thereupon solicited and obtained member- ship cards from the new employees, and was elected president of the Union. Whitfield and the salesmen also discussed the proposals relating to sales commissions that Holsten had discussed in his negotiations with Bridges, expressed dissatis- union, and that if they did either, Whitfield could decide whether or not he wished to join. He finally admitted that such testimony was inconsistent with his statement in a pre-hearing affidavit. Presumably Holsten was one of the four. 8 About a week or two later, the picketing at South Lot ceased. SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS faction with them, and agreed upon terms to present to Bridges. Whitfield then requested Bridges to meet with him, they negotiated for about 2' hours, and on April 6, 1967, they executed a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union security provision. On a "couple" of occasions thereafter, Whitfield discussed grievances with Bridges. Whitfield later left South Lot, and subsequently worked at one of Bridges' other corporations for several months. Upon his return to South Lot, he resumed the presidency because Employee Soulis, who had been elected president of the Union in his place, felt that Whitfield "knew more about the Union, how it ran, how it operated." Shortly prior to the hearing in this proceeding, Whitfield resigned and another employee was elected president. B. Concluding Findings The General Counsel contends that Holsten was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act; that through his conduct from and after December 17, 1966, the beginning of the 10(b) period, Respondent unlawfully dominated and assisted the Union; that despite Holsten's discharge and the subsequent election of Whitfield, a rank-and-file employee, as its new president, the Union did not lose its employer- dominated character; that Respondent's execution of a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union security provision with such a dominated union constituted a further act of unlawful assistance; and that a recommendation should be made that the Union be disestablished and its certification revoked. Respondent contends that the record does not establish that Holsten was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act; that even if he were regarded as a supervisor, his conduct between December 17, 1966, and his discharge on March 20, 1967, i.e. the only conduct which may be considered, did not result in any unfair labor practice (1) because it was economically advantageous to the salesman to loin the Union rather than Local 1095 since representation by the latter would prevent Sunday and night work and thus curtail their income, and (2) because the record establishes that during his negotiations with Respondent, Holsten vigorously represented the Union and did not represent his employer. I agree with the General Counsel. 1 I find that Holsten was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, based upon the following considerations: a. All sales of automobiles by salesmen required Holsten's approval to be final. He helped salesmen consummate agreements if they had difficulty. He also had sole authority to purchase automobiles. I accord little weight to Bridges' testimony that Holsten devoted 90 percent of his time selling cars. Since Bridges was not present at South Lot a good part of the time, it is questionable whether he knew how Holsten divided his time. In any event, even if his estimate were deemed accurate, it would not detract from Holsten's supervisory status. Bridges, who is unquestionably a supervisor, admittedly sells "a lot of cars" himself. b. Holsten received written progress reports showing the 9Although Respondent 's brief asserts that Holsten never disciplined anyone, the record merely shows that Bridges was not aware of Holsten's disciplinary acts. 631 total gross sales of the salesmen, discussed their sales records with each one, and either complimented or prodded him. c. Holsten had joint authority with Bridges to hire and fire employees at South Lot. Bridges gave contradictory testimony regarding such authority, but he finally admitted that his prehearing affidavit had correctly stated that such joint authority existed. He further testified that Salesmen Hess, Daugherty, Luce and Whitfield had no such authority, and seemed puzzled that he should even be asked, on a cross-examination, whether Hess had such authority. He also admitted that after discussing the rehiring of Hess with the latter and Holsten, he and Holsten both agreed that Hess would return to work. d. Holsten effectively recommended the transfer of sales- men to and from South Lot. At his request, Childers was transferred from North to South Lot in October 1966 and back to North Lot in November, and Daugherty was transferred from North to South Lot in the latter month. Bridges gave contradictory testimony regarding the transfer of Daugherty, stating variously that he did not think Holsten requested the transfer, that Holsten might have, and that he thought Holsten did. e. The salesmen communicated with Holsten if they could not report for work, expected to be late, or wished to leave early. On occasion, he disciplined a salesman who was late, either by an oral reprimand or by depriving him of selling time, thereby causing him to lose possible sales.' Holsten also exercised authority to grant leave to employees. Although Bridges denied the existence of that authority and testified that on one occasion he so told Holsten upon discovering that the latter had given Luce 2 or 3 days off,' 0 Luce testified without contradiction that the other salesmen were subse- quently given time off. f. Respondent correctly asserts that Holsten had no authority to "write, prepare or place advertising." However, it is admitted that Respondent's advertising agent regularly requested Holsten to furnish him with a list of automobiles to be advertised, and that the other salesmen were not so consulted, except possibly when Holsten was on leave. g. Respondent was a member of an independent auto- mobile dealers' association which did not have a contract with Local 1095, and whose members were open for business on Sundays and at night. During the period from November 1966 through January 1967, while South Lot was picketed by Local 1095, Holsten was requested by Bridges on three occasions to attend meetings of the Association, at which time the question of Sunday and night closing was discussed. h. Respondent admits in its brief that Holsten assisted in certain supervisory sales, and Bridges testified that Holsten's duties could be described "as coordinating the work of the salesmen." i. I reject Respondent's contention that one Chet Ulum was the General Manager of South Lot and Holsten's immediate superior, that Ulum participated in "conducting" sales meetings, and that complaints about salesmen were first referred to him. A reading of the record establishes that Ulum's principal functions were selling insurance to auto purchasers at both North and South Lot and approving 10Although the transcript refers to Hess, it would appear that the salesman involved was Luce. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD customers' credit where sales were financed. Indeed, Bridges himself testified that Ulum's title was General Manager "but" that "he was the insurance and credit manager." He also testified that when talking to customers, he identified Holsten as the "sales" manager, although he described him as the "lead salesman" to bank officials. Moreover, there is no evidence of any specific instance in which Ulum exercised any supervision over Holsten or in which he received and dealt with a customer complaint. As for sales meetings, the record shows that Bridges or Holsten called such meetings about once a week; that Bridges was present about half the time; that when he was present, he and Holsten presided jointly; that when he was not there, Holsten presided; and that Ulum's participation at meetings related primarily to matters involving financing and insurance. Finally, in view of the contradictory and unreliable character of some of the testimony given by Bridges and Whitfield, as well as their demeanor and the somewhat evasive nature of their testimony regarding the authority exercised by Holsten and by Ulum, I do not credit such testimony. 2. Although Holsten carried out Bridges' suggestion that he form the Union,' i their conduct in regard to its formation took place before December 17, 1966, i.e. more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. Accordingly, no unfair labor practice finding is made with respect to the formation of the Union. Ampex Corp., 168 NLRB No. 96. For the same reason, no finding of a violation is made based on Bridges' statement to Employee Whitfield, in November 1966, that he would have to join the Union. However, the foregoing conduct may be considered for background purposes to shed light on the significance of conduct which took place subsequent to December 17, 1966. N.L.R.B. v. Lundy Mfg. Co., 316 F.2d 921 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 375 U.S. 895; Seneca Plastics Inc., 149 NLRB 320. After the Union was formed and Holsten was elected its president, he told its members, on the day before the Board election held December 22, 1966, that he would protect their interests vis-a-vis management in order to persuade them to vote in favor of the Union. In February 1967, he told Employee Hess that the latter had to join the Union. Thereafter, he entered into contractual negotiations with Bridges. Such conduct establishes that the Union was aided and maintained by Respondent for the purpose of dealing with it concerning terms and conditions of employment; and that through Holsten, as a supervisor and as president of the Union, Respondent exercised close and continuing control over the Union's administration. I therefore find that Respondent dominated and interfered with the administration of the Union, and supported and assisted the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Ampex Corp., supra; Jansen Electronics Mfg., Inc., 153 NLRB 1555, Meyers Bros., of Missouri, Inc., 151 NLRB 889; Seneca Plastics, supra. It is true, as Respondent points out, that the employees believed that Holsten's representation of the Union was faithful and diligent, and that there is evidence indicating that Bridges discharged Holsten because of such representation. However, such evidence demonstrates, not that the Union was free of Respondent's domination, but the exact opposite, that is, that Bridges would not tolerate a union which refused to III do not credit Bridges' testimony that he did not encourage Holsten to fo'm a union and did not write Attorney Field 's address on the slip of paper which he gave to Holsten. remain under this domination. But even apart from the motive for Holsten's discharge, Respondent acted unlawfully in bargaining with a supervisor as representative of the Union. The dangers of having a supervisor participate in negotiations on behalf of employees are too great to permit even the opportunity for misuse of his position as a union negotiator. Even where the supervisor does not control the negotiating committee, the possibilities for subtly undermining the union's bargaining position are great, and wrongdoing on his part is extremely difficult to detect and prove. For these reasons, an employer may not deal with a bargaining committee which includes supervisory personnel. Nassau & Suffolk Contractors' Assn., Inc., 118 NLRB 174; accord, N.L.R.B. v. Anchorage Businessmen 's Assn., 289 F.2d 619 (C.A. 9); Powers Regulator Co. v. N.L.R.B. 355 F.2d 506 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. Mt. Clemens Metal Products Co. 287 F.2d 790 (C.A. 6);N.L.R.B. v. Stow Mfg. Co., 217 F.2d 900 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 348 U.S. 964. As stated in the Stow case, "Collective bargaining becomes a delusion and a snare if the employer, either directly or indirectly, is allowed to sit on both sides of the bargaining table." And in the Nassau & Suffolk case, the Board stated that- it is improper for supervisors, even those with predomi- nantly union loyalty, to serve as negotiating representatives of employees. Despite the large measure of control exercised over [supervisors] by the Union, [they] remain in part agents of their employers with a resulting divided loyalty and interests. Employees have the right to be represented in collective-bargaining negotiations by individuals who have a single-minded loyalty to their interests. Conversely, an employer is under a duty to refrain from any action which will interfere with that employee right and place him even in slight degree on both sides of the bargaining table. Nor does it he in Respondent's mouth to say that it was economically advantageous to its employees to select the Union as their bargaining representative. It may well be that if the salesmen had been free of Respondent's domination, they would have attempted to obtain higher sales commissions in place of Sunday and night hours. It "is manifestly impossible to say that greater benefits might not have been [sought] if the freedom of choice of a bargaining representative had not been interfered with." Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 319 U.S. 533, 544. I further find that the discharge of Holsten was insufficient to cleanse the Union of its dominated character. Whitfield, who succeeded Holsten as president of the Unions z and who negotiated and executed a collective-bargaining agreement with Bridges, had been personally told by Bridges that he had to join the Union, and was present when Holsten told the same thing to Employee Hess. Moreover, the significance of Holsten's dual role as supervisor and president of the Union could not have been lost on him. In addition, it is not unreasonable to believe that Holsten revealed to the em- ployees, including Whitfield, his view that he had been discharged because of his vigorous representation of the Union. I accordingly conclude that any desire and intention on the part of Whitfield to demonstrate independence in dealing with 12 Whitfield consulted the same attorney who had assisted Holsten in forming the Union , then signed up the new employees, and was elected by them. SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS 633 Bridges on Union matters were effectively chilled. But even if Whitfield's independence had not been affected, I would nevertheless conclude that the dominated nature of the Union was not purged by Holsten's discharge. Seneca Plastics, Inc., supra; Lawson Milk Co., 136 NLRB 538, mod. on other grounds 317 F.2d 756 (C.A. 6). In Seneca, in which the employer withdrew its appointees to the Union's negotiating committee, the Board stated that "it is only by disestablishing the dominated organization that they [employees] can be given an opportunity freely to select a representative." That language is a fortiori applicable here. In this connection, I note that the Union charged no dues, had no expenses,' 3 and engaged in little activity. 14 I find that at the time Respondent and the Union executed their collective-bargaining agreement, the Union was still dominated. Accordingly, I further find that the execution of the agreement violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.' s II. THE CERTIFICATION Having found the Union is an employer-dominated labor organization, and since it is recommended below that the Union should be completely disestablished, it is recommended that the certification issued to the Union in Case 20-RC-7298 be, rescinded and set aside. National Federation of Labor, Inc., 160 NLRB 961. III. THE REMEDY I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, and that it take certain affirmative action, specified below, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices. Since Respondent has dominated and interfered with the administration of the Union, I shall recommend that Respon- dent withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the Union as the exclusive representative of any of Respon- dent's employees for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, commissions, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of work. Ampex Corp., supra; Jansen Electronics, supra; Seneca Plastics, supra. I shall further recommend that Respondent cease giving effect to any agreements, oral or written, made with Respondent: Provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, commission, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees which the Respondent has established in the performance of these agreements, or to prejudice the assertion of any rights acquired by them thereunder. Grand Foundries, Inc., 151 NLRB 1170, enfd. 362 F.2d 702 (C.A. 8); Beiser Aviation Corp., 135 NLRB 399. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By dominating and interfering with the administration of the Union, and by contributing unlawful support and assistance to the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Union or of any other labor organization of its employees, or contributing support to or assisting the Union or any other labor organization of its employees. (b) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with the Union, or any reorganization or successor thereof, as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, commissions, hours of employment, or other condi- tions of work. (c) Giving effect to any collective-bargaining agreements, oral or written, made with the Union or any reorganization or successor thereof: Provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, commission, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees which the Respondent has established in the performance of these agreements, or to prejudice the assertion of any rights acquired thereunder. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish, the Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, commissions, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. (b) Post at its place of business in Hayward, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix .1116 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by an authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 - 13On January 10, 1967, the law firm with which Andrew Field was associated sent to Holsten , as representative of the Union , a bill for $150 for legal services rendered in connection with the formation of the Union, the election and certification , and the preparation of a proposed collective-bargaining agreement. Holsten never paid the bill and Whitfield never received another bill. 14Under Whitfield, the Union normally held meetings once a month or once every other month , but there was no "set " day or time for meetings. At meetings, which appear to have been short, the minutes of the preceding meeting were read, the members were then asked whether' they have any complaints , and these were discussed . According to Whitfield, there have been only two or three minor complaints which were disposed of by agreement with Bridges. 15 It is unnecessary to decide whether execution of the contract, which contained a union-security provision , also violated Section 8(a)(3). Cf. Lunardi - Central Distributing Co., Inc., 161 NLRB 1443. A violation of that section was not alleged in the complaint. In any event, a finding of such a violation would not affect the remedy. 16 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith." 17In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Association, and completely disestablish it, as the bargaining representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, commissions, hours of employment, and other conditions of work. WE WILL cease giving effect to any collective-bargaining agreement, oral or written, made with the Union, provided, however, that nothing herem requires us to vary or abandon any wage, commission, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of our relations with our employees which we have established in the performance of these agreements, or to prejudice the assertion of any rights acquired by them thereunder. 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 dominate or interfere with the admin- istration of Southern Alameda County Auto Salesmen's Association or of any other labor organization of our employees, nor will we contribute unlawful support or assistance to the Association or to any other labor organization of our employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS, d/b/a ART BRIDGES AUTO EMPORIUM SOUTH (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California, Telephone 556-0335.