Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc.

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc. and Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union. Case 13-CA-8252 January 15, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER On September 10, 1968, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci 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, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations 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 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 Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc., Aurora, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's failure to find that Respondent's statements to prospective employees during the course of employment interviews constituted independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner on July 23, 1968, at Aurora, Illinois, on complaint of the General Counsel against Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Company. The issue litigated is whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the statute in its admitted refusal to bargain with Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union, herein called the Union. Briefs were filed after the close of the hearing by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc., was chartered as an Illinois corporation in December 1967 for the purpose of doing business as the public bus transportation system for the City of Aurora, Illinois. It began operations early in the morning of February 1, 1968. Between that day and July 22, 1968, the day before the hearing, it purchased gasoline and oil, in the sum of $2,000, from local', suppliers to, whom the gasoline and oil had been shipped directly from out-of-State sources. By projection of this figure, Tom-A-Hawk will have expended in excess of $3,000 for such purchases during its first year of operations, February 1968 to February 1969. Tom-A-Hawk also stipulated with the General Counsel that during that same 1-year period, its gross volume of income derived from the operation of the city bus lines will be in excess of $175,000. The Board's jurisdiction, in terms of its established jurisdictional requirement standards, is satisfied by virtue of Tom-A-Hawk's common ownership and control with Aurora Educational Tours, Inc., a separate corporate entity which has long operated school buses under agreement with the municipal authorities of the City of Aurora, and a private charter bus business in the general area. Mr. Bryan Vinson, Jr., is president of both Tom-A-Hawk and Educational Tours; J. D. Gresham is vice president of the first company and the secretary-treasurer of the second; and Arthur J Crow is secretary-treasurer of the first and vice president of the second. The two companies function out of common offices; together they operate from the same garage location, utilizing the same facilities, where mechanics employed by Tom-A-Hawk occasionally work on buses operated by Educational Tours. In emergency situations, drivers of the latter company drive buses for Tom-A-Hawk. Vinson testified that Gresham does the hiring for Tom-A-Hawk, but the record in its entirety shows clearly that all three of the officers interviewed and hired most of the employees who joined the new company when it began operations. All three also do the hiring for Educational 'Tours During the past calendar year, the gross volume of business of Educational Tours exceeded $115,000. In view of the above facts it is clear that the operations of the two companies may be viewed as a single integrated business for purposes of testing jurisdiction, and that therefore the volume of business of both may be considered as one for purposes of testing the Board's jurisdiction.' Accordingly I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. IN L R.B v City Yellow Cab Co , 344 F;-2d 575 (C.A 6), enfg. 144 NLRB 994, Charleston Transit Company, 123 NLRB 1296 174 NLRB No. 24 TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT, INC. 125, III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES This is a refusal-to-bargain case. On February 1, 1968, Tom-A-Hawk began to operate the public bus transportation system for the City of Aurora. For years before this, Aurora City Lines, a separate entity, had been in the same business, performing the same public service, for the same city; City Lines ceased operations at the very moment Tom-A-Hawk took them over. In mid-January, with the planned changeover a matter of public knowledge, the Union, which for some 30 years had represented the bus operators and maintenance employees of City Lines, demanded that the new company recognize it and bargain; the Respondent refused. This refusal is said to have been a violation of Section 8(a)(5) by authority of a long line of Board and court decisions holding that a successor employer who continues the same "employing enterprise" is obligated to deal with the established bargaining agent of the still existing group of employees. At the time of the demand and refusal, and again at the hearing, the Respondent justified its position on the ground that it is not the successor to City Lines, and for this reason has never been under duty to bargain with the Union which previously dealt with another employer. There was some suggestion at the hearing of a further defense based on assertion that by February 1, 1968, the Union no longer was majority representative of the employees involved, but this argument is not repeated in the Respondent's brief, and seems to have been abandoned. The complaint also alleges that the Respondent's officials unlawfully coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1), in statements that this Company would in no event tolerate a union in its affairs, and even threatened to discharge any person who might attempt to organize the men thereafter. The Respondent denies any threats were made at all. The Facts Concerning Successorship Concerning the facts truly pertinent to the question whether the "employing enterprise" continued without significant change on February 1, there is no dispute. It was known before the end of the year that the old city bus company was going out of business for economic reasons. The city fathers took upon themselves the responsibility of assuring uninterrupted service to the public and to this end started negotiating with the owners of Educational Tours - Messrs. Vinson, Gresham, and Crow. For this purpose Tom-A-Hawk was formally incorporated by charter in December, and on January 2 signed a very detailed contract with the city. The agreement required the new company to continue the same bus service, along the same streets and on the same schedules as the old bus company, to start the very morning after the old one ceased. There was an understanding even then that with time there would be changes in rerouting of some buses along different streets, together with revised time schedules and bus stops or terminal point locations. The old company was franchised by the Illinois Commerce Commission; the new one is authorized directly by the City Council of Aurora. Permission for the city to grant this authority was obtained by petition filed with and approved by the State Commission. Proposed changes in routes or any other aspect of the public service are now submitted to and need be approved only by the City Council. The buses of the old City Lines company were delapidated and worn; none were passed on to the Respondent. Part of the city's agreement with Tom-A-Hawk was that the city would purchase 10 new buses and lease them to the company, for periodic payments. The express arrangement is that when these payments will have equaled the cost of the buses to the city, Tom-A-Hawk can take title to them upon payment of a nominal amount. The city in fact did purchase new buses, which have gasoline engines and carry 23 passengers each; the old city buses were diesel powered and had a 35 passenger capacity. Tom-A-Hawk is now in process of acquiring four additional used buses in its own name. There were other changes in methods of operations. The fare was reduced from 30 cents to 25 cents; tokens were done away with except for a short period while the new company continued to accept some outstanding tokens; a charge was established for transfers, which used to be given free. Further, Tom-A-Hawk operates out of a garage which was also used by Educational Tours, here the buses are serviced and stored. The old company used another garage at a different location. There were also changes in working conditions, that is, employee benefits, primarily in wage rates, as well as in fringe benefits. But these latter details more appropriately belong to another aspect of the case. Aware of their immediate employer's intention to abandon the city bus line, employees of Aurora City Lines started to apply for work with the Respondent in December, and Vinson began to interview them With the final city contract signed on January 2, the new company advertised for employees in the local newspapers. Beginning early that month, and continuing until February 1, many of the old drivers and maintenance men applied for work. In each instance, Vinson, sometimes together with Gresham and Crow, explained to them precisely what the conditions of employment would be; he detailed a 10-cent-per-hour increase in pay from $2.25 to $2.35, a $72 annual allowance for uniforms, certain paid holidays, and insurance benefits. The wage increase, of course, was a change; counsel for the Respondent concedes in his brief that the clothing allowance, insurance and vacation benefits "were unique and unrelated to Aurora City Lines." In most of the hiring interviews the question of the Union came up. Some applicants asked whether the Company would continue to deal with the Union, particularly with respect to contributions to the Union's pension fund. There is also direct evidence that Vinson at times himself injected the subject of the Union into the conversations. In any event, in virtually every instance Vinson had occasion to say that there would be no union among his employees, that he did not intend to pay pension benefits. Exactly how he phrased his position, and whatever else he may have said, will be set out more precisely below. Also, in mid-January, Donald Curtin, member of the Union executive board, and a representative of the Union, called on Vinson with two others and requested that he bargain. Vinson refused, after stating he knew the old company had dealt with the Union. Aurora City Lines ran its last buses during the night of January 31, and early the next morning the Respondent took over. On that day it had 24 employees, operators and maintenance men; of these, 14 were formerly employed by Aurora City Lines. In addition there was Richard Douglas at work, who had left Aurora City Lines 1 week before. There had been some turnover by the time of the hearing 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on July 23, and there then were only 10 former employees of the old company at work. Aurora City Lines employed a total of 23 to 24 operators and maintenance men when it went out of business. These were the classifications which constituted the appropriate unit as of old under the union contract.' Successorship: Substantial Continuity in the Employing Enterprise The test of successorship, as that concept has been applied by the Board and the courts where the duty to bargain under this statute is brought in question, turns on the subsidiary question whether the business being carried on after a change in identity of the employer is in reality the same employing enterprise as in the past . . we necessarily deal in terms of succession of employment, and not succession of employers, i.e., in terms of the continued nature of the employment rather than the source of such employment."3 "The controlling fact in each case is therefore whether the employment enterprise substantially or essentially continues under the new ownership as before." Cruse Motors, Inc., 105 NLRB 242, 247. In its brief the Respondent misconceives the test of its statutory obligation in stating the issue as being whether Tom-A-Hawk is a "successor corporation" to Aurora City Lines. It is not the continuity of the employer, corporate or otherwise, that governs. Rather: "The duty of an employer who has taken over an `employing industry' to honor the employees' choice of a bargaining agent is not one that derives from a private contract, nor is it one that necessarily turns upon the acquisition of assets or assumption of other obligations usually incident to a sale, lease, or other arrangement between employers. It is a public obligation arising by operation of the Act. The critical question is not whether Respondent succeeded to White Castle's corporate identity or physical assets, but whether Respondent continued essentially the same operation, with substantially the same employee unit whose duly certified bargaining representative was entitled to statutory recognition at the time Respondent took over ." Maintenance , Inc , 148 NLRB 1299. On a broader, but equally applicable basis: "The objectives of national labor policy, reflected in established principles of federal law, require that the rightful prerogative of owners independently to rearrange their businesses and even eliminate themselves as employers be balanced by some protection to the employees from a sudden change in the employment relationship." John Wiley and Sons v. David Livingston, 376 U.S. 543. The Respondent makes much of the fact it had no dealings with Aurora City Lines at all, that it took no assets or privileges from the old company directly. But compare West Suburban Transit Lines , 158 NLRB 794, where the Board found successorship despite the fact the named respondent had taken over from a receiver, who in turn had displaced an original operator of the bus system. Applying these principles to the pertinent facts in the case at bar, I am of the opinion that the Respondent's business is substantially the same employment enterprise 'The complaint alleges , the answer admits, and I find that all motor coach operators and maintenance employees of the Respondent, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 'N.L.R.B v McFarland, 306 F.2d 219 (C A. 10), enfg. 131 NLRB 745 as the one previously carried on by Aurora City Lines. Transportation of the public by bus along the streets of the city it was, and transportation of the public along the city streets it continued to be.4 The old company had, and the new one still enjoys a protected monopoly in the public transportation. One was called a franchise from the Illinois Commerce Commission, the other an exclusive contract grant by the City Council. In terms of what work the employees did before and after, this is not'a significant thing. Bus drivers they were and bus drivers they remain. The work duties and their essential function is unchanged. When the Respondent started to run the buses on February 1, it serviced exactly the same routes and time schedules of its predecessor. There were changes a few months later; certain lines were rerouted along different streets, and the terminal location was changed. The service garage is located elsewhere in the city, the fare is decreased, the transfers bear--a different company name. But these are not changes of substance so far as the work to be done is concerned, or in terms of what employment is required and performed to run a public bus service for the city. The buses are new, and carry 23 instead of 35 persons. It was even shown that they are now air conditioned. Had the old company bought replacement buses, changed the fare, moved a few lines to run along one street instead of another, I doubt it could be said the employment aspect of the business underwent an essential change. Aurora City Lines owned its own buses; the Respondent rents them from the city. In fact, however, the statement "rental" in the contract is virtual purchase payment, for when enough has been paid the buses will be the property of Tom-A-Hawk. It is true that in some precedent cases the second employer's outright purchase of equipment, machines, or transportation equipment from the predecessor are deemed pertinent to the successorship question. But those are situations where the consumer customers may vary, or the product, or the geography Such would be the case in production or service industries in which individual small employers enter and depart. A majority of the Aurora City Line employees moved right along with the employment enterprise to become direct employees of the Respondent. The last written agreement that company had with the Union by its terms was to expire on December 31, 1967, and apparently the very abandonment of the business was timed with termination of the contract term. There is uncontradicted evidence that by oral agreement the Union and City Lines undertook to continue the old contract in effect on a day-to-day basis thereafter. There was a union security clause, and all of Aurora's employees paid their dues for January by checkoff; Aurora sent this money to the Union towards the end of December. It does not appear that during January there was any substantial check-off of dues for the month of February. By this time, however, Vinson, for the Respondent, had told all applicants for employment there would be no union in his company. If advance payment of union dues then for the following month fell off, this was to be expected. It does not weaken the presumption of continuing majority representative status that arises as a ,matter of law from the long history of continuing contracts extending into the month of January. 'From the transcript testimony of Mr. Vmson. Q (By Mr Barnett) To make it clear for the record , Tom-A-Hawk has one job and one only, and that is to transport persons for hire from points within the city limits of Aurora to another9 A. Right TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT, INC. There is some indication in the testimony that during the month of January an element of discord developed among the men, while still working for Aurora City Lines, on the question of whether to continue or to stop paying dues to the Union at all. In the course of the hearing, during his examination of witnesses, counsel for the Respondent implied that the new company may have had a good-faith doubt about the Union's majority status when it refused to bargain on request. As set out above, the argument in defense is, not made in the Respondent's brief. In any event, assuming this to be an alternative defense to the complaint, it is not supported by the record. The inference is clear that whatever abandonment of the Union there may have been was as much a result of the Respondent's direct message to all that it would be futile to persist in pushing the Union at the moment, as it might have been caused by other factors. More important, at the time of refusal, both when voiced to the union agents and to the employees themselves, no question was raised about the Union's representative authority. Compare: Rohlik, Inc., 145 NLRB 1242. I find that Tom-A-Hawk is a successor to Aurora City Lines by virtue of the continuing employment enterprise which it undertook on February 1, 1968, and as such was obligated to bargain with the Union as successor. I therefore find that by its refusal to recognize and bargain with the charging Union the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 8(a)(1) Vinson did more than tell the representatives of the Union that he would not bargain with the labor organization; he also told the applicants for employment individually there would be no union involved in Tom-A-Hawk's projected operations. According to some witnesses he even said he would discharge any who attempted to establish a union as bargaining agent. The General Counsel contends that not only the threats, but also the very act of telling employees in advance of their hire that the employer would not tolerate collective bargaining at all, constituted restraint and coercion violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Merle Russell, a bus driver, testified that when detailing the employment conditions which would prevail, Vinson added "he [Vinson] would hope to do better than that later, why maybe we would get it up to $3 an hour ... he said that there was a possibility that we might have profit sharing in the future if things went good." Russell continued that Vinson then himself brought up the subject of the Union. ". . . he complained to me that as far as the union was concerned that right at present that he had no objections, but he couldn't have it right then because he couldn't afford it." - Harold Woods, another driver, was interviewed by both Vinson and Mr. Crow. He recalled that after saying the pay would be $2.35 per hour, with 6 paid holidays and uniform allowances, Vinson "said there,was no union ... he wasn't union at the present time . . . they might later on - maybe go into a union later, but not at the present time." Steven Carter and Robert Dray, also drivers formerly with Aurora City Lines, said they applied together on January 27, and sat in Vinson's office with both his fellow officers, Gresham and Crow. As Carter testified, Vinson first explained precisely the working conditions, and then .. in regards to the Union, there would not be a union at the present time, but maybe in time they would 127 recognize the union. But if they caught anyone trying to organize the union or talk about unions on the premises of the company they would be fired." This was Carter's testimony on direct examination by the General Counsel. On cross-examination, he quoted Vinson differently: "He said that we would be fired if there was any obstructions regards a union, no union activity. . . If there was any obstruction regarding the service of the company in regard to union activity, such as strikes. I mean like that." Dray's testimony is that after discussing the various details of compensation and individual benefits the employees would receive, Vinson simply said, ". . that there wouldn't be a union here for at least six months, but after that he felt we could get one in. But he felt that he would fire the first man that would put one in before six months. That's all I really remember about it." Vinson recalled telling all applicants what the new wage rate would be, with improved vacation and other benefits. He also said he did tell virtually all of the men there would be no union. As he recalled it, it was they who inquired, some wanting to know also whether Tom-A-Hawk would continue making payments into the union pension fund. "Several of the employees that we interviewed asked if we would have a union when they came to work for us, and in answering their question I had to use the word `union' by saying that we would not have a union when we began operations February the 1st." "Mr. Dray and Mr. Carter were both told in the presence of Mr. Crow, Mr. Gresham and myself that our company would not in the future have any objection to the organization, of a union, but we did not feel obligated to assume a union of another organization when we were not assuming that organization's ownership or control or their interstate authority or anything else, and that if our employees came to work for us and decided later that they would like to have a union, this would be their prerogative." ". . we simply made them aware of the fact that we were beginning as a new company. And I said I would like to have a few months in which we could become familiar, familiar with bus routes in Aurora, make the study that the city council and Mayor had so requested us to make to make the changes in routes that they felt should be made. And then I said that after we had gotten our feet on the ground and we knew a little bit about public transportation in Aurora and how to serve the needs of the people, I said if the employees would want a union, not any particular union, but if they would want to form a union that we would have no objection to the formulation of that union." I do believe the -employee witnesses, however, that at times it was Vinson himself who injected the subject in the interview conversations; once he said "it was a general topic of discussion." As to his talk with Carter and Dray, Vinson unequivocally denied having threatened them, or any other applicants for employment, with discharge should there be any attempt to bring a union into the company. He did testify that a few days before operations started, he had heard a rumor about some employees planning to work only a few days, Friday and the weekend, and then strike "and keep anybody from taking buses out on the routes." He said that in consequence of this report he told a gathering of employees that "anyone who attempted to obstruct the operation of the bus routes on Monday, February 5, would be discharged from duty with Tom-A-Hawk Transit." On the question of what kind of threat was voiced to the employees, I credit Vmson's version of what he said. 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dray put that one phrase in his mouth and could recall no other reference to the Union in the entire hiring interview. Carter first said Vinson made a threat apart from any kind of union talk. When pressed, he added Vinson had talked about "obstruction of services," and strikes, when articulating the threat. But this version does not substantially conflict with that of Vinson I do not think the adverse admission, drawn from Carter on cross-examination, was cured by the fact that when asked to repeat the conversation a third time on redirect, he carefully removed the word "obstruction" from the quotation. I find that Vinson told the men they would be discharged if they attempted physically to obstruct the Respondent's operations, a statement he could lawfully make. I do not believe he threatened to discharge anyone merely for talking about the Union, or trying to organize the new complement. All this, however, does not excuse his repeated statement to the former employees of Aurora City Lines, or even to stranger applicants, that he would not bargain with the Union until a later day when in his opinion the time would be appropriate; The statutory right of employees to engage in collective bargaining through a union of their choice cannot await the good graces of the employer And it may well be, as the General Counsel argues, that the mere statement by an employer that he intends to operate without recognizing a union for a period of time brings an improper coercion to bear upon the employees' protected freedom to engage in union activities. I doubt, however, any useful purpose would be served by probing that question minutely in the circumstances of this case. The Respondent concedes it told the union representatives it would not bargain. It repeated the statement of position to the employees themselves. To find, as suggested, that by the act of telling the employees individually, a further, distinct and cumulative unfair labor practice was committed, would seem to belabor the point. In the context of an out-and-out order to bargain, which must issue in this proceeding, precise inquiry into the further pinpointed alleged violation becomes almost an abstraction If the finding of successorship is a good one, the Respondent must bargain with the Union regardless of whatever Vinson may have told individual employees If Tom-A-Hawk is not to be deemed a successor in the 8(a)(5) sense, no amount of coercive statements of intention not to deal with any union could warrant an affirmative order to bargain. It might as well be said that in addition to a broadside illegal refusal to bargain in rejecting the request of the union officers, Vinson also violated the statute, and committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5), each time he spoke to a prospective employee about conditions of employment and changed whatever their terms had been before. The whole of necessity includes the sum of its parts. But no real purpose would be served by cumulative findings of independent unfair labor practices each time Vinson unilaterally spoke to employees, behind the back of the majority representative, as it were. W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All motor coach operators and maintenance employees of the Respondent, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union, was on February 1, 1968, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on and after February 1, 1968, to meet with the above-named labor organization and to bargain with it for purposes of collective bargaining the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices 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 the case, I recommend that Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc., Aurora, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Refusing to- bargain collectively with Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement (b) Post at its offices and garage in Aurora, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional '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 " TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT, INC. Director for Region 13, shall, 'after being signed by the Respondent representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has 1 aken to comply herewith.' 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX 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 refuse to bargain collectively with Division 215, Amalgamated Transit Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or 129 assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with this union as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All motor coach operators and maintenance employees, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Dated By TOM-A-HAWK TRANSIT, INC. (Employer) (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, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 353-7597.