Rollins-Purle, Inc.

ROLLINS-PURLE, INC. Rollins-Purle, Inc. and Local 216, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 270, a/w the International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., Party to the Contract, Case 15-CA-4043 December 22, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On September 20, 1971, Trial Examiner Fannie M, Boyls issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt her recommended Order. 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 Respondent, Rollins-Purle, Inc., Baton Rouge, Loui- siana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FANNIE M. BOYLS, Trial Examiner: This case, initiated by a charge filed on February 25 and a complaint issued on April 26, 1971, was tried before me in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 23 and 24, 1971. The complaint alleges, and Respondent and the Party to the Contract deny, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by unlawfully assisting and supporting the Party to the Contract.` Subsequent to the hearing Respondent and the General Counsel filed helpful briefs. Upon the entire record in this case and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after a careful consideration of the briefs, I make the following: 194 NLRB No. 117 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT 709 Respondent, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rollins International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation having a principal office located in Wilmington, Delaware. At the time of the alleged unfair labor practices it had two plants, one in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where the unfair labor practices are alleged to have occurred, and another in Logan, New Jersey. During the 12-month period prior to the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period, Respondent purchased and received at its Baton Rouge plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Louisiana and during the same period received revenues in excess of $50,000 for waste disposal services performed for enterpris- es directly engaged in commerce . On the basis of these admitted facts, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED A. Local 216, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (herein called the Operating Engi- neers), the Charging Party herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. B. General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 270, a/w The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amenca, Ind. (herein called Teamsters 270), Party to the Contracts involved herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing Teamsters 270 as the bargaining representative of its employees at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant at a time when Respondent did not have in its employ a representative number of employees, by thereafter entering into a collective-bargain- ing agreement with Teamsters 270 when a majority of its employees had not designated that Union to represent them and by thereafter using coercive means to pressure its employees into joining or signing checkoff authorization cards for Teamsters 270. In defense of its conduct-which for the most part is not in dispute-Respondent asserts that it had already recognized another local of the Teamsters as the bargaining representative of its employees at a newly opened plant in Logan, New Jersey, at the time it recognized Teamsters 270 as the representative of its Baton Rouge employees, that it had prior to that time agreed with the Teamsters International that it would negotiate a master contract on a national level to cover the Logan as well as the Baton Rouge and other plants which Respondent planned to open and that the Baton Rouge plant should be considered an accretion to the Logan plant unit of employees or to the nationwide unit which was planned. Respondent also 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contends that its recognition of Teamsters 270 and its execution of a contract with that labor organization was lawful because at the time recognition was extended on September 26, 1970, its only two employees were then members of Teamsters 270. It further contends that even if its original recognition of Teamsters 270 and the execution of a contract with it were unlawful, Respondent's conduct should be considered as condoned by the employee's failure to reject the contract or by their acceptance of it when they learned about it. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, Respondent's defenses are rejected and it is found that Respondent did, as alleged in the complaint, unlawfully assist and support Teamsters 270. B. Rollins International Inc. and its Affiliates, Including Respondent; The Grand Design of Representation by Teamsters Unions for all Plants to be Opened by Respondent Rollins International, Inc., whose headquarters are in Wilmington, Delaware, is the parent of approximately 35 affiliated corporations engaged in various types of business. One of these affiliates is Respondent, Rollins-Purle, Inc. It was recently formed to receive, treat , and dispose of industrial waste. The parent and its affiliates have interlocking officers and management representatives. One of the affiliates, Matlack, Inc., with headquarters in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, has had a contract with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters since 1958. It is engaged primarily in the transportation of bulk commodi- ties for various enterprises, including Respondent and other, affiliates of Rollins International, Inc. John C. Peet, Jr., vice president and General Counsel of Rollins International, Inc., has dealt with the Teamsters International and various locals in connection with contract negotiations for Matlack and numerous other corporations for many years. Because Matlack was under contract with a Teamsters union at each of its terminals and because it was planned that Matlack would transport some of the bulk commodities to be used by Respondent in processing and treating industrial waste, Peet decided that if employees of Respondent were to be represented by any union, he wanted it to be the Teamsters . This is because he wanted to minimize the likelihood of trouble between Teamster members and members of other unions with whom they might come in contact. Accordingly, in February or early March 1970, according to Peet, after Respondent was incorporated and after its first plant, known as the Logan, New Jersey, plant, was opened but not yet operational i Peet, accompanied by Robert H. Shertz, past president of Matlack and executive vice president of Rollins International, Inc., went to the Teamsters Interna- tional headquarters in Washington, D.C. and proposed to i The Logan plant was then open but in a pilot stage and was not dedicated until sometime in June 1970 2 A letter dated March 2, 1970, from Winters to Peet purporting to confirm a conversation and understanding reached at the International offices of the Teamsters on March 2, 1970, indicates that Respondent probably had 18 employees at the Logan plant on that date and that it had recognized Teamsters Local 312 as their bargaining agent. The letter also recites that Peet had requested and the Teamsters had agreed that a national agreement covering all employees of Respondent, wherever Teamster representatives there that a national contract be entered into which would cover all the facilities which were planned for Respondent throughout the United States. Peet conceded at the hearing that no question was asked either at that meeting or prior thereto as to whether the Teamsters represented a majority of Respondent's employees at its only plant then opened-the Logan plant. The Teamster representatives present, including Charles D. Winters, general organizer for the Teamsters International and president of Teamsters 270, agreed to Peet's proposal.2 Thereafter, following some oral discussions with Team- ster representatives, Peet met with them in Miami, Florida, on February 3, 1971, and submitted a draft of a proposed national agreement between Respondent and the Team- sters, including, among other things, a provision that wages and hours would be negotiated at the local level. The national agreement was not finalized and signed until April 1, 1971. In the meantime, as hereinafter related, Respondent on November 20, 1970, signed an agreement with Teamsters 270 covering only its Baton Rouge employees. It was not until May 21, 1971, subsequent to the execution of the national agreement, that Respondent signed a contract with another local of the Teamsters (Local 312) covering the Logan, New Jersey, plant employees. This contract was made retroactive to April 1, 1971.3 Clearly under the facts shown in this record, Respon- dent's contention that a unit of its employees in its Baton Rouge plant should be treated as an accretion to a unit of its employees in the Logan plant or to any other unit must be rejected. Even where an employer has more than one plant in a geographical or administrative area-as Respon- dent did not-the Board has long held that a single plant unit, being one of the unit types specifically mentioned in the statute,- is "presumptively appropriate," and other things being equal, should prevail over other types. Temko Aircraft Corporation, 121 NLRB 1085, 1088, footnote 11; Dixie Bell Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631. Here, the criteria long recognized by the Board and courts as supporting the appropriateness of a single plant unit are present. Respondent, a newly formed corporation, had no history of collective, bargaining. Its two plants which commenced operating in 1970, as well as its third plant at Houston which was opened on the first day of the hearing in this case, are geographically remote from each other. There have been no permanent transfers of nonsupervisory employees from one plant to the other. The Baton Rouge employees had been hired from the immediate area in which the plant is located. The plant manager at Baton Rouge, subject to' a limitation as to the number of employees permitted by Respondent's director of opera- tions in Delaware, is responsible for the hiring and firing of located, would be negotiated Rollins, chairman of the board of directors of Rollins International, Inc., estimated at that time that Respondent would eventually have 100 plants throughout the United States 3 At the time of the occurrence of the unfair labor practices alleged in this case, Respondent had only the Logan and Baton Rouge plants operating On the first day of the hearing herein, on June 23, 1971, Respondent opened a third plant in Houston, Texas A fourth plant, in Chicago, Illinois, was in the planning stage. ROLLINS-PIJRLE, INC. employees and for the day-to-day operations at Baton Rouge. Moreover, the job classifications, wage,rates, and other conditions of employment of employees in the Logan and Baton Rouge plants are not uniform. In addition, another labor organization, the Operating Engineers,- was seeking to represent Respondent's Baton Rouge employees in the single plant unit .4 In contending that the Baton Rouge employees should be considered as a part of the Logan unit or a nationwide unit to be established, Respondent has completely ignored Section 7 of the Act which is aimed at protecting employees in their right to join a union of their choice or to reject representation by any union. As the Board pointed out in Melbet Jewelry Co. Inc., 180 NLRB No. 24, "Section 9(b) [of the Act] directs the Board to select units to `assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by the Act'-which rights, of course, are those set out in Section 7 . . . . We will not . . . under the guise of accretion, compel a group of employees, who may constitute a separate appropriate unit, to be included in an overall unit without allowing those employees the opportu- nity of expressing their preference in a secret election or by some other evidence that they wish to authorize the Union to represent them." C. Respondent's Recognition of and Contractual Relations with Teamsters 270 as Bargaining Representative of its Baton Rouge Employees Other than several members of its administrative personnel, Respondent had no employees at its Baton Rouge plant until September 26, 1970, when it hired a driver (J. Hill) and a drives`-helper (A.L. Stephens) who were referred by Teamsters 270 at Respondent's request .5 No further employees were hired until October 12. By November 20, 1970, Respondent had 10 employees in the production, maintenance, and driver unit (the classifica- tions which Respondent and the Teamsters now recognize as properly in the appropriate unit). By the date of the hearing in June 1971 it had 30 such employees on its payroll. On September 26, the same day that Teamsters 270 sent Respondent the first two unit employees for the Baton Rouge plant, Teamsters 270's president, Winters, wrote Peet in Wilmington, Delaware, demanding that his union be recognized as the bargaining representative of the employees of the Baton Rouge plant and enclosing a "rider" to a national contract (not yet in existence) which he asked Peet to sign. Thereafter Peet and Baton Rouge Plant Manager Morgan Jones met with Winters and the Teamsters' attorney, John Ormond, in New Orleans on September 30 to discuss a contract for the Baton Rouge operation. According to Peet, the parties reached an agreement and signed a handwritten draft on the same day but the agreement was not typed up 'and mailed to Respondent at Baton Rouge until some time in November. Thereafter, on November 20, Morgan Jones, acting for 4 Spartan Industries, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 406 F.2d 1002, 1005 (C.A 5), enforcing 169 NLRB 309, Sheraton-Kauai Corp., 177 NLRB No. 13, enfd. 429 F.2d 1352 (C_A 9); Melbet Jewelry Co Inc, 180 NLRB No. 24; Pix Manufacturing Company, 181 NLRB No. 17 5 The helper, Stephens, was terminated on October 2 and'replaced by 711 Respondent, and Charles D. Winters, acting for Teamsters 270, signed what was described as an "interim agreement" covering the production, maintenance, and office employ- ees at the Baton Rouge plant and containing a union security provision.6 According to Winters, the parties had about four meetings before this contract was signed and Peet was present at all except the last of these meetings; the contract was typed up about 3 weeks prior to November 20 and signed on the latter date. I believe that Peet was mistaken in his testimony that final agreement on the interim agreement was reached on September 30, for he conceded that after September 30 and before November 20, three provisions in the handwritten draft were eliminated because they were more appropriate for a national agreement than for one on the local level. In any event, I do not regard it as important, for purposes of this case, whether the interim agreement was finalized on September 30 or on November 20. The production and maintenance employees and drivers at the Baton Rouge plant, as I have found, constitute the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining at all times relevant to this case. Respondent concededly did not have in its employ a representative number of employees in the appropriate unit at Baton Rouge on September 30 and therefore could not then have lawfully recognized Teamsters 270 as the representative of such employees. Nor could Respondent on November 20 lawfully recognize Teamsters 270 and enter into a bargaining agreement with that labor organization because, even assuming that it then had in its employ what might be considered a representative number of employees, a majority of those employees, as demon- strated below, had not designated Teamsters 270 as their bargaining representative. When the interim agreement was signed on November 20, Respondent had 10 employees in the production, maintenance, and truckdriver unit which Teamsters 270 later purported to represent and for which the Operating Engineers had filed a representation petition on February 8, 1971. Seven of these 10 at no time ever authorized Teamsters 270 to represent them (Davis, Honore, Spring, Johnson, Walker, Forman, and White). The other three, at the time they were hired, were already members of some Teamster local. Hill was a member of Teamsters 270; Aubrey Kirkland was a member of a Teamster local in Jackson, Mississippi, and did not know of any claim that Teamsters 270 represented the employees until March 1971, after which he transferred his membership to Teamsters 270; and Phillips was a member of Baton Rouge Teamsters Local 5 but transferred his membership to Teamsters 270 when Superintendent Rogers told him he would have to do that before he could be put to work. It follows from what has been said above that Respon- dent gave unlawful assistance to Teamsters 270 by recognizing it as the exclusive bargaining representative of its Baton Rouge employees and entering into a collective- bargaining contract with it and that the November 20, 1970, contract could not properly constitute a bar to an election another helper, Phillips, on October 5. Phillips was a member of Teamsters Local 5, with whom Teamsters 270 had been having a jurisdictional dispute prior to September 26, by which date they had adjusted their differences 6 The office employees classification, as Peet explained, has subsequently been negotiated out of the unit considered appropriate 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD petition filed by the Operating Engineers on February 8, 1971. D. Further Assistance given by Respondent to Teamsters 270 Following the Filing of Representation Petition on February 8, 1971, by the Operating Engineers 1. Disclosure by Respondent and Teamsters 270 of their interim agreement and its union security provision after Operating Engineers filed its representation petition In early January after some of the employees decided that they needed a union to represent them, the Operating Engineers commenced an organizational campaign at the Baton Rouge plant. On February 8, 1971, that labor organization filed a representation petition with the Board. On February 16 counsel for Teamsters 270 wrote the Regional Director of the Board that his Union had a contract, dated November 20, 1970, with Respondent covering the Baton Rouge employees and that such contract constituted a bar to the representation petition filed by the Operating Engineers. He enclosed a copy of the contract. On February 19 counsel for Respondent wrote the Board's Regional Director a similar letter, enclosing a copy of the contract. Thereafter on February 25, 1971, the Operating Engineers withdrew its representation petition and filed the charges here involved. Until the disclosure of the November 20, 1970, contract in the manner set forth above, neither the employees nor the Operating Engineers knew of its existence. Upon being informed by the Operating Engineers of the existence of the contract, a number of the employees in the latter part of February requested and were granted an interview with Plant Manager Morgan Jones and Superintendent William Rogers about the contract. They requested a copy of the purported contract but Jones said that he could not furnish a copy and could not answer any questions about it until he had consulted Respondent's counsel. One of the employees, Honore, had called Teamsters 270 Business Agent Albin the night before for information about the contract and requested copies for the employees. Albin replied that copies had probably not yet been run off but that he would leave a copy at the plant on the following day. He failed to do so. In a letter to Teamsters 270 in New Orleans, dated March 2, 1971, and signed by 11 of the employees, a request was made that copies of the contract be sent to each employee in care of employee M. C. Gullett. In response to the latter request a copy of the printed but unsigned interim agreement which had been executed on November 20 was sent to each of the employees on March 9. On March 16, 1971, Teamsters 270 President Winters wrote the employees, calling their attention to the union security provision of the contract which required each employee to become a member on or after the 31st day following his date of hire and informing each of the amount of his initiation fee ($75) and dues ($7 a month). Enclosed with each letter was a checkoff, authorization form. Each employee was informed that he 'must execute such authorization and return it to the Teamsters office, postmarked no later than March 28, 1971. In a letter dated March 18, 1971, from Teamsters 270 Business Agent Albin to each employee, notice was given of a special meeting of the employees on March 28 to discuss the contract and other matters. The employees were advised that they could sign and turn in their checkoff authorization cards at that meeting. In a letter dated March 24, 1971, Teamsters 270 reminded each employee who had been in Respondent's employ for 30 days or-more of the union security provision of the contract and stated: This letter will serve as a seventy-two (72) hour notice that if no arrangements have been made by you to pay your initiation fee and/or delinquent dues, an official knock-off notice will be sent to your Company. Following receipt of this letter the employees requested and were granted a meeting with management representa- tives on March 26. 'Representing management were the newly appointed plant manager, Herschel Scott, Transpor- tation Manager Cliff Rogers, and Supervisor W.W. Stones (who took minutes of the meeting which were introduced in evidence as G. C. Exh. 17). Employee Honore accused Respondent of having committed an unfair labor practice in recognizing and entering into the agreement with Teamsters 270 and a few questions were asked about why Respondent had not complied with terms of the contract, but most questions concerned the union shop provision of the contract and the 72-hour notice the employees had received. Scott told the employees that the "Company does recognize a contract at this time" but assured them: "There will be no immediate layoffs of personnel, but I cannot commit the Company on future developments." Only two employees attended the Teamsters 270 meeting held on March 28. These were a driver, Hill, and a driver helper, Phillips, the only two employees who at that time were already members of Teamsters 270. Each signed a checkoff authorization card at the conclusion of the meeting. Hill was appointed by Albin as temporary union steward. 2. Attempts by Respondent to force employees to accept Teamsters 270 as their bargaining representative Following the revelation to the employees in February 1971 that Respondent had in November 1970 executed a contract with Teamsters 270 covering them, management representatives in various ways sought to induce or force them to accept Teamsters 270 as their bargaining representative. Most of the coercive pressure was applied by Transporta- tion Manager Cliff Rogers. In about mid-March he questioned driver Dixon about the latter's interview with a National Labor Relations Board investigator and asked Dixon why he had gone for the interview. When Dixon explained that he had wanted to know whether the Teamsters 270 contract was supposed to be in effect and that some of the fellows in the operations department had asked him to make a statement to the investigator, Rogers told Dixon, "Well, I hope you realize that you are working for me and not for those fellows in operations." This statement, I find, constituted a veiled threat of job reprisal ROLLINS-PURLE, INC. 713 against Dixon for engaging in a protected concerted activity. Shortly after the employees had received Teamsters 270's letters of March 16 and March 24 in which they were apprised of the union security provision of the contract, furnished with checkoff authorization cards and given a 72- hour notice to sign, Rogers told Dixon and another driver, Rogillio, that they "might as well go ahead and sign" the checkoff authorization because Teamsters 270 would be their bargaining representative if there was one, and they "would have to loin." Dixon replied that they could receive his money but they could not make him like belonging to Teamsters 270. Shortly thereafter Rogers instructed Dixon to see Rogillio before leaving the plant. When Dixon did so, Rogillio told Dixon that Rogers had instructed him to tell Dixon "to quit bad-mouthing Local 270." Dixon did not sign the checkoff authorization until April 21 and when he did so, he wrote on it, "not good for over $25." Nevertheless, Respondent deducted $45 from his next paycheck. On or about March 29 Rogers asked driver Dykes whether he had signed up with Jerry Hill, the Teamsters 270 steward, yet and Dykes replied that he had not. Rogers told him "to go ahead and sign." Dykes signed a checkoff authorization card the next day. A couple of days later Rogers again asked Dykes whether he had signed and when Dykes replied that he had, Rogers instructed him to tell driver-helper Bellue to sign. Dykes thereafter gave the message to Bellue. On the next day, Bellue telephoned Rogers and asked whether he had in fact sent Bellue the message that he should "go, ahead and join the Union" and Rogers replied that he had. Bellue thereafter signed a Teamsters 270 checkoff card on April 3, 1971. Just before Rogillio was hired as a driver on December 7, 1970, he asked Rogers whether there would be a union at the plant and Rogers replied that there "possibly" would be one and if so it would be Teamsters 270 but told Rogillio not to worry because Rogers would tell him when to join. On the morning of April 2, Rogers came to Rogillio and told him it was time for him to sign up with Teamsters 270. He assured Rogillio that he would help with the money involved. Thereafter, on the same day, Rogillio signed a checkoff authorization card. In May, shortly after $45 had been deducted from Dixon's paycheck, in partial payment for Teamsters 270 dues and the initiation fee, Rogers invited Dixon to take a car ride with him and during the course of the ride told Dixon that he had to help Rogers. Rogers explained that "the man" (not specifically identified in the record) had called Rogers and told him that Rollins International, Inc., had about 1000 employees represented by the Teamsters and that Rollins International, Inc., was "not going to have a little handful of people down here represented by another organization." Rogers told Dixon that he had talked "the man" out of turning Baton Rouge plant transportation ' One of these employees, David Ardom, was told by Rogers when being hired on March 9, 1971, that he would be made a permanent driver at the end of a 90-day probationary period At the end of the 90 days when he asked Rogers about his status, Rogers assured him not to worry about his job but that he could not be given permanent status because Teamsters 270 Business Agent Albin had said he would not have Ardoin in the Local. work over to Matlack, another affiliate of Rollins International, Inc., by assuring "the man" that if an election was ever held, he would practically guarantee that his men would vote for the Teamsters. When "the man" asked Rogers how he could be so sure of himself, Rogers replied that "if you hire the right people you can be sure of yourself," adding that his men "had never let him down." Rogers' car came to a halt at a point where drivers Rogillio and Welch were working and he repeated to them the substance of the message that he had lust related to Dixon. At the conclusion of the conversation he told all three men that they were going to have to use what influence they had on employees in operations to induce them to support the Teamsters if an election was held. He also told the men that the money which had been deducted from their paychecks would be returned to them and that when they received the money, he wanted them "to go right back and sign one of those cards with the Teamsters Local." Within 2 or 3 weeks thereafter, Rogers approached four of the drivers or trainees, Rogillio, Ardoin, A. Kirkland, and Dykes and asked them: "Do you all think you can talk to any of the operations bunch to sway them . . . into voting for Local 270, because if not . . . they will lock this place up and move it." He assured the four men that if they voted for Teamsters 270, they would not have to worry about a job because if the business moved, they could move with the business and work for it elsewhere. He also told them that their money which had been checked off for the Teamsters would be returned to them but he wanted them, when they received the money, to sign up with the Teamsters again.? Plant Manager Herschel Scott also sought to force Teamsters 270 upon the Baton Rouge employees as their bargaining representative. One afternoon early in April, after operations employee Marvin Gullett had earlier declined an invitation by Union Steward Hill to represent the operations employees in a meeting between manage- ment and Teamsters 270 representatives, Gullett was summoned to Plant Manager Scott's offices Hill and Teamsters 270 Business Agent Albin were present with Scott. Scott immediately walked into a small adjoining office and Gullett followed him. He told Scott that the operations employees had not authorized him to attend this meeting and he did not want to be there. Scott insisted, however, that Gullett should attend the meeting despite Gullett's insistence that there were two groups involved in everything at the plant and that he, Gullett, was there against his will. Scott ushered Gullett back into the office where Hill and Albin were waiting. On Albin's insistence that he see Gullett alone for a few minutes; Hill and Scott left the room. Gillett told Albin, as he had told Scott that he was there against his will, was not authorized to represent anyone and that he and the other operations employees did- not want--to take any position until the controversy between the Operating Engineers and Team- 8 Gullett was not an official spokesman for the operations employees, but in the March 2 letter signed by Gullett and 10 othei employees, Teamsters 270 was requested to send a copy of the bargaining agreement to each of the employees at Gullett's address. Gullett had also asked Scott to hold a meeting with all the employees on March 26. 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sters was settled. Albin replied that he was only there to do his job and asked Gullett whether he was getting paid a shift differential. Gullett replied that he was not. Thereaf t- er, Scott, Hill and Transportation Manager Rogers joined them and Albin brought up for discussion a complaint that one of the drivers was not getting his full pay and the fact that shift differentials were not being paid. Scott stated that the shift differentials would be paid and that payments would be made retroactive. At the conclusion of the meeting, Scott apologized to Gullett for having put him "on the spot" but reiterated that he felt it was best that Gullett attend. 3., Conclusions regarding Respondent's conduct following disclosure of the November 20 contract to its employees It has already been found that Respondent unlawfully assisted and supported Teamsters 270 by recognizing that labor organization as the bargaining representative of its Baton Rouge employees and entering into the November 20 contract with it when a majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit had not designated Teamsters 270 to represent them. The fact that 12 employees, apparently a majority, signed checkoff authorization cards for Teamsters 270 in March and April 1971, after being informed of the November 20 contract containing a compulsory membership clause and after receiving that Union's notice that the discharge penalty clause of the contract would be invoked if the employees did not sign within 72 hours, does not at all support Respondent's argument that its earlier unlawful assistance to Teamsters 270 was in some way, wiped out or condoned by the employees' acceptance of the contract and its terms. It is clear from the record that Teamsters 270 never at any time represented an uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit at the Baton Rouge plant. Respondent's assistance to and support of Teamsters 270 was of the most flagrant kind. When most of the employees failed immediately to heed the Union's 72-hour notice, Respondent again came to the Union's support by making a veiled threat of job reprisal against one employee for cooperating with a Board agent who was investigating the unfair labor practice charge; by specifically directing some of the employees to sign the checkoff authorizations; by sending word to one employee to stop criticizing Teamsters 270; by threatening a number of the drivers that Respondent would turn its transportation work over to another affiliate of Rollins International, Inc., if Respon- dent's drivers did not select Teamsters 270 to represent them; by soliciting the aid of a number of the drivers in inducing operations employees to designate Teamsters 270 as their bargaining representative and warning the drivers that Respondent would close its Baton Rouge plant and move its, business if those employees did not accept Teamsters 270; by telling a number of employees that Respondent would return to them the money Respondent had already checked off from their paychecks but that when they received it, they should immediately sign up with 9 The Union had prior to the hearing returned to Respondent for distribution to the employees a check covering the amounts of dues or initiation fees collected from the employees. Teamsters 270 again; and by coercing an operations employee, despite his expressed unwillingness, to attend a meeting between Respondent's representatives and Team- sters 270 representatives. This conduct constituted further assistance to and support of Teamsters 270, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By recognizing Teamsters 270 as the bargaining representative of its Baton Rouge employees at a time when Respondent did not have in its employ a representative number of employees, by entering into a collective- bargaining agreement with that labor organization when a majority of the employees had not designated it to represent them and by later giving effect to said agreement, including its union security provision, and coercing employees to sign checkoff authorizations for Teamsters 270, Respondent has unlawfully assisted and supported Teamsters 270 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and' (1) of the Act, my recommended Order will require that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.' Respondent will be required to cease and desist from maintaining or giving effect to any collective-bargaining agreement with Teamsters 270 covering Respondent's employees at its Baton Rouge plant and to withdraw and withhold recognition from that labor organization as the representative of such employees unless and until it is certified by the Board as their bargaining representative. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary any wage or substantive feature of its relations with its Baton Rouge employees which Respon- dent has established in the performance of its contract with Teamsters 270.' Respondent announced at the hearing that it was reimbursing its employees for the sums deducted from their paychecks pursuant to the checkoff authorizations they had signed.9 In view of the fact, however, that the employees had not actually received reimbursement at the time of the hearing and of the further fact that Respondent had instructed some of the employees to sign up with the Teamsters 270 again as soon as they received reimburse- ment, my recommended Order will require Respondent, if it has not already done so, to reimburse its employees for all such amounts deducted from their paychecks prior to the date of compliance with this recommended Order. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the' Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10 10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in ROLLINS-PURLE, INC. ORDER Respondent, Rollins-Purle, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Furnishing assistance or support to General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 270, a/w The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor organization of its employees at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant. (b) Recognizing Teamsters 270 as the representative of any of its Baton Rouge plant employees for the purpose of dealing with them concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or conditions of employment, unless and until the National Labor Relations Board shall certify Teamsters 270 as such representative. (c) Giving effect to its agreement with Teamsters 270 covering employees of its Baton Rouge plant, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding agreement, until and unless Teamsters 270 shall have been certified by the Board as the representative of said employees; but nothing herein shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any wage or other substantive feature of its relations with said employees, which it has established in the performance of any such agreement, or prejudice the assertion by said employees of any rights they may have thereunder. (d) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations hereto- fore executed by its Baton Rouge plant employees, authorizing the deduction of periodic dues or initiation fees from wages for remittance to Teamsters 270, prior to the date of compliance with this order. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its Baton Rouge plant employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Team- sters 270 as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees at its Baton Rouge plant, unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified as such representative by the Board. (b) Reimburse employees of its Baton Rouge plant, if it has not already done so, for any periodic dues or initiation fees deducted from their paychecks for transmittal to Teamsters 270, in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "Remedy." (c) Post at its plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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 the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 715 (d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Section 10248 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 11 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to,a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT assist or support General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 270, a/w The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT give effect to or operate under any agreement with Teamsters 270 covering employees of this plant unless and until the National Labor Relations Board shall have certified that Union as your bargain- ing representative. This does not mean, however, that we will take away from you any wage increase or change any condition of your employment merely because it may have been required under a term of Teamsters 270's contract. WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff card which you may have signed, authorizing us to deduct union dues or initiation fees from your wages and pay them to Teamsters 270, and will reimburse you for any amounts so deducted if you have not already been reimbursed. WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from Teamsters 270 as your bargaining representative and will not recognize it as your bargaining representative unless and until such Union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as your representative. All of you are free to join or support, or not to join or support, any union. ROLLINS-PURLE, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, T 6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361.