The Sinclair Manufacturing Co.

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Sinclair Manufacturing Company and International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20, Party to the Contract . Case 8-CA-5052 August 21, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On March 6, 1969, Trial Examiner John G. Gregg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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 and the Party to the Contract, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20,' filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, only to the extent consistent herewith. The Trial Examiner concluded that, by recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters, Respondent unlawfully assisted and supported the Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, and unlawfully interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. This conclusion was based on his finding that International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America,' had a substantial claim to representation sufficient to raise a genuine question concerning representation. For the reasons set forth below, we find merit in the exceptions of the Respondent and the Party to the Contract to this finding. Respondent is an Ohio corporation which has a manufacturing plant in Toledo, Ohio, where it is engaged in the production of detergents and 'Hereinafter called Teamsters 'Hereinafter called District 50 or the Charging Party or the International. containers. The Company and District 50 and its Local No. 12087' have maintained continuous contractual relations for about 25 years covering the Respondent's production and maintenance employees. The latest contract, which expired April 30, 1968, had been executed, like the parties' preceding agreements, by officials of the International on behalf of the Local, as well as by the officers of the Local. In February 1968, the Respondent wrote to both the Charging Party and the Local requesting the opening of negotiations for a successor agreement . Negotiations commenced around March 15. Eight negotiating sessions took place over a period of the next 6 weeks with International Representative Thomason and a Local committee of five or six members, including the president and vice president of the Local, representing the employees, and Crane Kendrick, Respondent's vice president, secretary, and treasurer, Gary Schreiber, Respondent's director of manufacturing, and Jack Parco, Respondent's assistant plant manager of the Toledo plant, representing the Respondent. In the negotiations held on April 30, Respondent gave Thomason a list of economic proposals. The parties had previously reached substantial accord on all noneconomic items. Thomason and the Local committee agreed to transmit the latest proposals to their membership at a meeting scheduled for that evening, and expressed confidence that the proposals would be accepted by the membership. Following the Union meeting, however, Thomason notified Respondent by telephone that the membership had rejected the proposals, and had voted to go on strike for better terms. Picketing commenced at midnight on April 30. The negotiators met briefly on May 1, and again on May 6, at which time Thomason proposed certain changes in the economic items that he felt would overcome the objections to the earlier proposal. Another negotiating session was held on May 8, at the office of the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service. Respondent at this time offered new economic proposals which were substantially identical with what Thomason had proposed earlier, and the Union representatives agreed to submit them to their membership. In response to the Mediator's query, both parties agreed that apart from the economic items, there were no other unresolved contract issues. Efforts were made to hold a union meeting during the afternoon of may 8, but this did not prove possible, and the meeting was therefore scheduled for May 9, at 9:30 a.m. Meanwhile, a substantial number of Respondent's employees, who were interested in disaffiliating from District 50 met with Attorney Jack Gallon at his office on May 7. All of the officers of the Local attended that meeting, which culminated in the officers issuing a notice 'Hereinafter called the Local 178 NLRBNo.29 SINCLAIR MFG. CO. 183 calling for a meeting of the membership of the Local for 11 a.m. on May 9, to consider disaffiliation. The notice was issued to picket captains and posted around the picket line. On May 9, before the scheduled 9:30 a.m. contract ratification meeting, some of the employees met with Gallon at the Teamster's hall. Gallon read a resolution concerning, among other things, disaffiliation from the Charging Party and it was agreed that the resolution would be the first item to be considered at the meeting that morning. At the 9:30 a.m. meeting on May 9, the president of the Local, Virginia Bailey, called for consideration of Respondent's new contract proposal but this subject matter was tabled. The disaffiliation resolution was then read and after discussion it was adopted by a vote of 88-7. Immediately following this vote, the members voted 80-20 to accept Respondent's new contract proposal. The question of affiliation with another union was then brought up and the members at this point, by a vote of 88-7, approved a resolution to affiliate with the Teamsters. Although Thomason by his own account was present for the disaffiliation vote and therefore was aware of the fact that the employees by an overwhelming margin had voted to disaffiliate from District 50, he phoned Kendrick shortly after noon that day, and reported only the Union membership's approval of the proposed contract." He suggested that he and Kendrick get together to put the agreement in final form. Unaware at that stage of what events had taken place, Kendrick agreed to meet at l o'clock that afternoon with Thomason at a motel to put the new agreement in writing. When Thomason arrived, Kendrick was on the phone with his attorney, who informed Kendrick that one of his colleagues had had a telephone call from Gallon, who demanded recognition of the Teamsters. Apparently still unaware of the facts, or of the significance of Gallon's demand for recognition on behalf of the Teamsters, Kendrick asked Thomason why he had not brought any of the Local committee with him. Thomason replied that he could not get them together but that he really did not need them because he could sign the contract by himself. Kendrick thereupon telephoned his attorney and was informed of what had occurred at the morning meeting. Kendrick then asked Thomason to tell him exactly what occurred at the morning meeting. Thomason told him there had been two votes at the meeting- one to disaffiliate from District 50 and another to accept the Company's proposal. He made no mention of the third vote to affiliate with the Teamsters. Kendrick then confronted Thomason with the information he had received from his attorney, that the employees had also voted to affiliate with the The Trial Examiner did not credit Thomason's testimony that he also advised Kendrick at this time about the disaffiliation vote. Teamsters, and that this indicated to Kendrick that District 50 no longer represented Respondent's employees. Thomason merely replied that the purpose of the employees' meeting that morning had been to vote on Respondent's contract proposal and not to consider disaffiliation, but he did not deny either that the employees had disaffiliated from District 50 and had affiliated with the Teamsters, or that he knew, as Kendrick indicated, that District 50 no longer represented the employees. Kendrick, in response, told Thomason that he would under the circumstances have to consult with his attorney at this time, but asked Thomason whether he would consent to a Board election. Thomason refused, and Kendrick then left. Later that afternoon, Kendrick met with Thomason again and informed him that, in view of the developments, Respondent intended to deliberate over its course of action. Thomason at that point raised no claim that Respondent was under a legal obligation to sign a contract with District 50. The next morning Kendrick called Thomason and informed him that Respondent was unable to sign a contract with District 50 and the Local in these circumstances. Later in the day there was a meeting at the office of Repondent's counsel between Kendrick and Schreiber for Respondent, Attorney Gallon, Teamsters' representative Gary Case, and the entire Local bargaining committee, which had previously joined Thomason in contract negotiations. Gallon demanded recognition by Respondent of the Teamsters as the representative of Respondent's production and maintenance employees on the basis of signed authorization cards. Respondent said that it wanted an independent verification of the cards and arrangements were made for authentication by a neutral party. The card check was undertaken by Judge Bame, a member of the Toledo Labor-Management Council, who reported that 80 of the Respondent's 112 employees had signed cards authorizing the Teamsters to represent them. Before the independent check was completed, Kendrick received a call from Thomas Badoud, an official of the International, who asked whether Respondent was ready to continue and complete bargaining with the International and "its Local." Badoud, at this time, did not claim that District 50 represented any of Respondent's employees or maintain that the Local was still a functioning organization. Kendrick told him that in view of developments Respondent could not negotiate further with District 50. The next day, May It, Kendrick met at the Teamsters' offices with the bargaining committee. The committee gave him a list of 10 or 15 items which the members said required discussion. The items were discussed and that afternoon a contract was signed. Contrary to the Trial Examiner's view, it is clear that at no time after the disaffiliation vote and the subsequent affiliation vote did District 50 or its 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local have a representative interest among Respondent's employees. This is evident from the fact that Thomason knew that the employees had voted to disaffiliate from the Local and the International at the time that he made his final request to Respondent to complete the bargaining, and that therefore it was unlikely that the Local was still a functioning labor organization. District 50's doubts on that score were made manifest by Thomason's action in concealing from Respondent the fact of the disaffiliation vote. With the further knowledge by District 50 that the employees on May 9, had also voted to affiliate with the Teamsters, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Badoud's mere request on May 10 to Respondent to continue bargaining with the International and its Local constituted neither a valid nor even colorable claim to representative status. Badoud, at this time, made no claim that the International or its Local represented any employee, that the Local officers had not abandoned their official status in the Local, or that there still existed a viable Local. In view of the foregoing, and on the record as a whole, we find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters, and accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN G. GREGG, Trial Examiner: This trial was held before me in Toledo, Ohio, on November 19, 1968, on the complaint of General Counsel and the answer of The Sinclair Manufacturing Company, herein called the Respondent. The complaint alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. At the close of the trial briefs were filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent and the Party to the Contract, all of which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent The Sinclair Manufacturing Company is now and has been at all times material herein an Ohio corporation engaged at its manufacturing plant in Toledo, Ohio, in the production of detergents and containers. It annually ships finished materials of a value in excess of $50,000 from its Toledo, Ohio plant to points located outside the State of Ohio. I find the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein called the Mine Workers, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20, herein called the Teamsters are and have been at all times material herein labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges essentially that since on or about May 1, 1968, the Respondent has rendered and is rendering unlawful aid, assistance and support to the Teamsters by recognizing the Teamsters as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees, engaging in contract negotiations with the Teamsters, and executing a contract with the Teamsters concerning rates of pay, and other terms and conditions of employment for the Respondent's production and maintenance employees with knowledge of the status of the Mine Workers as the previously recognized and incumbent bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees and with knowledge of the existing continuing claim of the Mine Workers to the status of exclusive bargaining representative of the said employees, thereby interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and thereby rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. A. The Facts There is no substantial disagreement concerning the material facts of this case. Prior to April 30, 1968, the International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America and its Local No. 12087 maintained continuous contractual relations with the Respondent Company covering the Respondent's production and maintenance employees for a period of about 25 years. On April 30, 1968, the most recent 3-year contract between these parties expired by its terms. Contracts between these parties had been executed by both the officials of the International Union of District 50 and officers of Local No. 12087. The record discloses that Crane Kendrick, vice president, secretary and treasurer of the Respondent Company for 5 years, and representative of the Respondent in the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement, sent a letter on February 26, 1968, to the International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America for the purpose of "notifying you of the Company's desire to seek modifications in the current collective-bargaining agreement with your organization." The Company offered to meet and confer with union representatives for the purpose of negotiating modifications and specifically stated that upon receipt of a reply, arrangements would be made with Mr. Thomason of the Mine Workers relative to a mutually agreeable time and place for beginning negotiations. Copies of the foregoing letter were sent to Mr. W. P. Thomason, International representative, and to Mrs. Virginia Bailey, president of Local Union No. 12087. SINCLAIR MFG. CO. When negotiations commenced around March 15, 1968, the Company was represented by Kendrick, Gary Schreiber and Jack Parco. Representing the International was W. P. Thomason of District 50 with a committee including Gene Jankowski, Ann Connelly, Gene Hymore, Melvin B. Szczepanski, and Virginia Bailey representing the local. At the last of the eight negotiating sessions, held on April 30, 1968, Kendrick gave Thomason a list of economic proposals. In the prior sessions the parties had in principles reached agreement on substantially all noneconomic items. Thomason and the committee agreed that they would transmit the latest proposals to their membership for acceptance and expressed confidence that they would be accepted by the membership which was to meet that evening . According to Kendrick, Thomason called him that evening to inform him that the membership had rejected the Company's proposal and had voted to go on strike for better terms. The picketing began at midnight, April 30, 1968. The next day May 1, 1968, Kendrick had a brief meeting with Thomason and the Local committee at his plant office, at which time Thomason stated that he felt the rejection was due to dissatisfaction with the money items. Kendrick indicated the Company needed some time to reevaluate the situation, some picketing ground rules were discussed and the meeting was over. A few days later on May 6, 1968, a further meeting was held at which time Thomason proposed certain changes in the economic itenhs and expressed his feeling that these would overcome the objections to the earlier proposal. Another meeting was held on May 8, 1968, at the offices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, attended by company representatives, Thomason and the Local committee and a Federal mediator. At this meeting Kendrick offered new economic proposals which in most respects complied with the request of Thomason at the May 6 meeting. According to Kendrick, at this time the mediator inquired of those present whether or not there were any other issues that were still unresolved and both sides agreed there were none. Following the meeting Thomason was to arrange a meeting of the membership at 2:30 that afternoon to vote on the new proposals. He later advised Kendrick that he could not get the membership together for a meeting at that time. Thomason then scheduled the meeting for the next morning, May 9, 1968, at 9:30 a.m. Credible testimony of record establishes the fact that a substantial number of employees of the Respondent interested in disaffiliating from the Charging Party met with Attorney Jack Gallon at his office on May 7, 1968. This meeting was recessed to invite officers of Local 12087 to attend the meeting when it resumed, which was done. At the close of the meeting a notice was issued for a meeting of the membership of Local 12087 for 11 o'clock in the morning of May 9 at the Toledo Central YMCA to consider disaffiliation . The notice was issued to picket captains and posted around the picket line. On May 9, 1968, before the meeting scheduled for 9:30 by the Mine Workers on contract ratification some of the employees met with Counsel Jack Gallon at Teamsters Local 20's hall. Gallon read a resolution concerning among other things disaffiliation from the Charging Party. It was agreed that this resolution would be the first item for consideration at the ensuing 9:30 meeting. As the 9:30 meeting got under way Virginia Bailey, president of Local 12087 called for consideration of the 185 Respondent's latest contract proposal. The membership however, voted to table this matter and to have the disaffiliation resolution read. After discussion the disaffiliation resolution was adopted by a vote of 88 to 7, even though Thomason had objected on the grounds of improper procedure. Following the vote on the disaffiliation resolution a motion to accept the Respondent's last contract proposal was approved by an overwhelming vote. Following this the members considered the matter of affiliating with another union. Gary Case, Organizing Director for Teamsters Local 20, then addressed the membership, following which the membership voted to affiliate with Local 20. According to Kendrick, about 12 noon on May 9, 1968, Kendrick received a telephone call from Thomason advising Kendrick that the membership had voted to accept the Company's latest contract proposal by a vote of 80 to 20 and Thomason proposed to Kendrick that they get together to put the contract in final form and to sign it that day. Thomason testified that he also advised Kendrick at this time about the disaffiliation vote which had taken place. I do not credit Thomason's testimony on this point but accept the version of Kendrick whom I found to be a straightforward sincere witness. Kendrick advised Thomason he was prepared to go ahead, make a typist available and began typing a version of the contract. At 1 p.m. on May 9, 1968, Kendrick, Schreiber, Parco, and a secretary met with Thomason at the Holiday Inn Motel. According to Kendrick when Thomason arrived at 1 o'clock Kendrick was on the telephone with his counsel who had indicated to Kendrick that certain things had come to his attention as having occurred at the employees' meeting that morning. Following his telephone call Kendrick asked Thomason to tell him exactly what had happened at the morning meeting. Thomason then advised him there had been two votes at the meeting, the first to disaffiliate from the Mine Workers, the second to accept the Company's proposal. According to Kendrick, he then informed Thomason that the disaffiliation vote, and a subsequent affiliation vote that he had heard about involving Teamsters 20, made it appear that the Mine Workers no longer represented the Company's employees. Thomason's response was that the purpose of the employees' meeting that morning had been to vote on the Company's contract proposal, and not to consider disaffiliation. Kendrick then told Thomason that he would have to consult with legal counsel at this point, and asked Thomason whether he would consent to an election by the National Labor Relations Board which Thomason declined. Kendrick then proceeded to visit his counsel, picking up the company president on the way and leaving the others to continue working on the draft of contract. Sometime around 5:30 to 6:30 in the afternoon Kendrick and Brown returned to the motel to advise Thomason that in view of developments the company intended to deliberate over its course of action. Thomason requested that he be advised the next morning as to the Company's decision. The next morning on May 10, 1968, Kendrick called Thomason and advised him that the Company was unable to sign a contract with the Mine Workers and the Local in view of the circumstances. On May 10, 1968, Kendrick, Schreiber, and their counsel met at counsel's office with the negotiating committee. Thomason was no longer present but an additional member had been added to the bargaining committee. In addition the committee had present counsel 186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jack Gallon, and Gary Case an official of the Teamsters' Local 20. At this meeting Gallon advised the Company that the Teamsters had an overwhelming majority of authorization cards signed by the bargaining unit employees and that the Teamsters were now representing the employees. Gallon referred to a resolution that had been adopted by the members that the officers would continue and that the committee would function but that they were disaffiliated from the Mine Workers. At the same meeting of May 10, 1968, Gallon also advised the Company that the employees had on May 9, 1968, voted to accept the Company's contract proposals and that except for certain areas of language difficulty and a back to work agreement the Teamsters negotiating committee had no intention of seeking different contract terms. The Company then indicated it wanted an independent verification of the cards. Arrangements were then made to have the cards checked by Judge Bame, a member of the Toledo Labor-Management Council. Judge Bame confirmed the Teamsters majority status. Before the independent check was completed Kendrick received a telephone call from Badoud an official of the U. M. W., who asked whether the Company was ready to continue and complete bargaining with District 50 and its Local 12087. Kendrick advised him that in view of the developments the Company could not do so. Judge Bame completed his check on Friday evening at which time Kendrick was advised that the Teamsters had in fact an overwhelming majority. The next morning May 11, 1968, at 9 o'clock Kendrick and Case met at the Teamsters' offices with the committee. At this session the committee submitted a list of 10 or 15 items which they said required discussion. Discussions were carried on and at 4 o'clock that afternoon a contract was executed. B. Discussion Based upon the record as a whole I am convinced that a real question concerning representation existed as a matter of law when the Respondent on May 11, 1968, recognized and contracted with the Teamsters as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees. Under the long settled doctrine of the Board in Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060, an employer faced with conflicting claims of two or more rival unions which give rise to a real question concerning representation may not recognize or enter into a contract with one of these unions until its right to be recognized had finally been determined under the special procedures provided in the Act. In the case at hand a real question concerning representation existed as a matter of law on May 11, 1968, when the Respondent Employer recognized and executed a contract with the Teamsters Union. Under these circumstances the Respondent Employer could not assume to judge for itself upon a showing of authorization cards, which of the contending unions was the statutory representative of the employees. Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1573, 1575. The claim of the Mine Workers to represent the employees is found in the facts and circumstances of this case . It included a long incumbency extending over a period of 25 years during which time the Mine Workers together with the local was actually engaged in representing the employees of the Respondent and during which time the Mine Workers were signatory to and participated in the negotiation and execution of collective-bargaining agreements. It is well settled that the Board recognizes a substantial claim to representation inherent in the very incumbency of a union. Air Master Corporation, 142 NLRB 188. Not only did a substantial claim exist by reason of the long incumbency of the Mine Workers herein but the claim was emphasized in my view in the case at hand by the demands of both Thomason and Badoud, representatives of the Mine Workers, for continued bargaining and the execution of a contract. While the Respondent argues that neither Thomason nor Badoud, in their final requests to the Respondent to pursue and complete the bargaining, claimed any longer to represent the Respondent's production and maintenance employees or any part of them, I nevertheless find inherent in these requests by Thomason and Badoud for a continuation of bargaining claim to the representation of the employees by the Mine Workers. While the Respondent argues that it had no good faith doubt as to the only majority status claim presented to it, the Respondent begs the question of whether on all the facts and circumstances herein there did not exist at that time another and continuing claim to representation on the part of the Mine Workers. I am convinced that there was such a claim outstanding as a matter of law, and that accordingly there existed a genuine question concerning representation. The Respondent adverts to the language of the Board in The Boy's Market, Inc., 156 NLRB 105, wherein the Board stated "However it is also established law that an employer does not violate the Act by extending recognition to one of the competing unions where the rival union's claim is clearly unsupportable or specious, or otherwise not a colorable claim. In such circumstances, there is no real question concerning representation of employees." Based on all the facts and circumstances herein, I find the claim of the Mine Workers, at the time material, to be neither unsupportable nor specious, nor without color, and accordingly find the existence of a real question concerning representation. Under these circumstances I find it unnecessary to pass on the question of the validity of the disaffiliation and affiliation actions of the members taken on May 9, 1968. It is more significant to note that there was indeed a question concerning the validity of the actions taken, that this question was raised by Thomason, the Mine Workers representative and that the Respondent clearly had notice of this question at the time it chose to recognize and contract with the Teamsters. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Sinclair Manufacturing Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America , and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 20 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters Union as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees at a time when a question concerning the representation of such employees existed the Respondent Employer thereby rendered and is rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor organization and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair SINCLAIR MFG. CO. labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 4. By recognizing and contracting with the Teamsters Union as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees at a time when a question concerning representation of such employees existed the Respondent Employer has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Employer has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend an order that the Respondent Employer cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent Employer recognized and contracted with the Teamsters Union on May 11, 1968, at a time when there existed a real question concerning representation of the employees covered thereby, in order to dissipate the effect of such unfair labor practices, I shall recommend an order that the Respondent withdraw and withhold recognition from the Teamsters Union as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees and to cease giving effect to the aforementioned contract until such time as the Teamsters Union shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees in question. Nothing herein shall, however, be construed to require the Respondent Employer to vary or abandon any existing term or condition of employment. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, the Respondent, The Sinclair Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Assisting or contributing support to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20, or to any other labor organization by recognizing and contracting with such labor organization as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees for the purpose of collective bargaining at a time when there exists a real question concerning representation (b) Giving effect to its contract of May 11, 1968, with the Teamsters Local 20 covering the production and maintenance employees of the Respondent or to any renewal, extension or modification thereof or supplement thereto unless and until said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 187 2. Take the following affirmative action which is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Teamsters Local 20 as the exclusive representative of its production and maintenance employees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and until the said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. (b) Post at its manufacturing plant in Toledo, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the company's representative shall be posted by the Respondent company 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 the Respondent Employer to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' 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 said notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of the 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 " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, par. 2(b) hereof shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Employer 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: After a hearing duly held, it has been determined that this Company has violated the National Labor Relations Act. In order to remedy this conduct we have been required to post this Notice and to take the following steps: WE WILL NOT assist or contribute i support to Teamsters Local 20 or to any other labor organization by recognizing and entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with such labor organization as the exclusive representative of our production and maintenance employees at a time when there exists a real question concerning representation. WE WILL NOT give effect to our contract of May 11, 1968, with the Teamsters Local 20 or to any renewal extension or modification thereof or supplement thereto unless said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming, or remaining members of the 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD above-named or any other labor organization . This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, THE SINCLAIR or covered by any other material. MANUFACTRUING If employees have any question concerning this notice COMPANY or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate (Employer) directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 1695 Federal Dated By Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio (Representative) (Title) 44199, Telephone 522-3715, Area Code 216.