Unelko Corp.

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Unelko Corporation and Waste Material Handlers Union, Local 20467, United Transport Service Em- ployees, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-10573 January 31, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On October 22, 1971 , Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a support- ing brief, and a motion to reopen the hearing and admit certain additional evidence.' General Counsel filed a brief in response to Respondent 's exceptions and oppo- sition to Respondent's motion to reopen the hearing for the admission of the evidence proffered by Respondent. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority 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,2 and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Unelko Corporation , Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. ' In its motion , Respondent argues in essence that the record should be reopened for the admission into evidence of a copy of the 1971-74 collec- tive-bargaining contract executed by the Union and the Association and four other documents which, according to Respondent , evidence that sepa- rate bargaining was contemplated by Respondent and the Union As pointed out by the Trial Examiner , if Respondent wished to rely on the contract, it had ample opportunity to do so at the hearing The hearing was also the proper place for the introduction of the other documents In any event, it is clear from the record that Respondent 's course of conduct does not indicate that separate bargaining was contemplated Accordingly , we deny Respondent's motion to reopen the record ' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear prepon- derance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a pro- ceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard in Chicago, Illinois, on July 22, 1971 ,' with all parties par- ticipating pursuant to due notice upon a complaint2 issued by the General Counsel on June 30. The complaint alleges, in substance, that, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act, Respondent since on or about April 16 has refused to execute or be bound by a collective-bargaining agreement reached on or about April 13 by Waste Trade Industry of Chicago (hereafter called the Association) negotiated on be- half of its members, including Respondent, with the Union in a unit consisting of all production employees employed by Association members. In its duly filed answer Respondent states that, timely and prior to the commencement of the Association negotiations with the Union , it withdrew as a member of the Association, that the Union consented to negotiate separately with it, and that unusual circumstances based on competitive conditions in the industry made it economically destructive to be bound by the new Association bargaining agreement. All parties were represented and were afforded an oppor- tunity to adduce evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs received from the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I COMMERCE At all times material herein, the Association has been an association of individuals, partnerships, and corporations do- ing business in Chicago, Illinois, and the immediate vicinity, who are engaged in the packing, buying, or selling of waste materials. Its members annually receive gross revenue in ex- cess of $500,000 and, during the past fiscal year, purchased and had delivered goods and materials in excess of $50,000, to their Illinois locations directly from States other than the State of Illinois. Respondent admits, and I find, at all times material herein members of the Association have been en- gaged in commerce and their operations have affected com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, at all times material herein that the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary Statement Association, consistent with one of its purposes , has since at least 1959 negotiated collective-bargaining agreements with the Union for and on behalf of its members , covering terms and conditions of employment for employees of As- sociation members represented by the Union , and at all times material herein Association and the Union have negotiated collective-bargaining agreements, The bargaining unit in these agreements consists of the following employees: All I All dates hereafter refer to the year 1971 unless otherwise noted. 2 Based on a charge filed on April 27 by Waste Material Handlers Union, Local 20467, United Transport Service Employees, AFL-CIO , hereafter referred to as the Union. 195 NLRB No. 34 UNELKO CORPORATION 237 production employees , employed by all employer members of the Association , who are engaged directly or indirectly in the processing or handling of waste materials , but excluding all production and other employees who are members of any other union , all office and clerical employees , shipping and receiving clerks, plant guards, professional employees, maintenance men in the plants who have been historically excluded , truckdrivers, supervisors, and any other employees required to be excluded under the provisions of the Act. The aforesaid employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. In the early part of May 1968 , the Association and the Union met to negotiate a new contract for the 1968-71 period . Howard Ohlhausen , representing Universal Corpora- tion and Elko Clothing Corporation , the predecessors of Re- spondent, was a member of Association's negotiating com- mittee' and participated in the negotiations . One of the subjects discussed was whether certain Association members' engaged in the wiping rag business should be permitted to pay wage rates lower than those paid by other members because they were unable to compete with nonunion firms located in the South whose employees were receiving the minimum wage of $140 an hour under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In order to enable these Association members to stay in busi- ness it was agreed over the objections of Ohlhausen that a rider be added to the contract providing for a lower wage scale applicable to them. The renewal contract without any reference to the lower wage scale was made retroactive to May 1, 1968, and signed by the representatives of Association members, including Respondent . The contract states, in part, that the contract contains all the agreements reached by the parties in collective-bargaining negotiations . The lower wage scale applicable to the companies , discussed and agreed upon in their negotiations, was embodied in a separate supplemen- tal agreement and signed on behalf of the Association only by David Siebert, the executive director, and the union officials, and copies were sent only to the four involved Association members. On April 8, 1970, Respondent sent a letter of resignation to the Association, effective immediately. By reply of May 18, 1970, the Association advised Respondent that its board of directors had refused to accept the resignation because ac- cording to its bylaws a member could resign only within the 30-day period prior to the expiration of the 1968-71 collec- tive-bargaining contract with the Union, and stated further that, if Respondent continued to desire to resign , it must do so between March 31 and April 30, 1971. In February or early March, Ohlhausen allegedly learned of the wage scale set up in the supplemental agreement and the identity of the four companies to which it applied. In March he met with Siebert and Edwin D. Szold , the assistant secretary-treasurer of Association , and asked why there was a supplemental agreement and why he had not been notified about it. Szold, who with Siebert had attended the negotia- tions, replied that the information had been stated in the minutes' of the meeting with the Union, and that a copy had been sent to him , Ohlhausen retorted that he had no knowl- edge that a separate wage structure had been put into effect. Thereafter, in a letter of April 2 to Respondent, the Associa- tion enclosed a copy of the supplemental agreement. r He had also been a member of the negotiating committees on several prior contracts Cook and Riley, Inc , Sanatex Corporation, Hork Sanitary Rag Com- pany, and Sandler Sanitary Wiping Cloth Company were later identified as these members Prepared by Szold B. The Negotiations for the Renewal Contract On January 25, D. C. Currie, the Union' s chief steward, sent a letter to Respondent stating that the Union was giving formal notification of its intention to amend the contract then in effect and expiring in April, and that Respondent would receive copies of the desired amendments . Prior to this letter, Ohlhausen, in a meeting with Currie, had discussed whether Respondent was going to resign from the Association. Curve had also inquired whether Respondent would continue to recognize the Union and was told that it would. On March 2, the Union met with and submitted its propos- als to Association representatives for a renewal contract for the 1971-74 period. On March 29, Association met again with the Union, and after presenting its counterproposals an agreement was reached on all economic issues except for a hospital plan. The parties also agreed that Association mem- bers engaged exclusively in the grading and washing of wip- ing cloths should pay a lower wage rate than the other mem- bers. The Association members then instructed their director, David Siebert, to exert his efforts to obtain the lower wage rate for all members. However, if unsuccessful in that en- deavor, he was authorized to sign the contract and present it to the members for ratification at a general meeting of the membership. Respondent was not represented on the As- sociation bargaining committee at either of these two meet- ings. On April 13, the representatives of Association members, including Ohlhausen, met to hear Siebert explain the terms of the proposed renewal contract . Over objections to Ohl- hausen, who pleaded that Respondent should also have the same preferential wage rates for rag graders and trimmers accorded to Association members engaged exclusively in the wiping cloth business, the Association members, except Ohl- hausen, voted to have Siebert sign the renewal contract re- gardless of whether he was unsuccessful in his endeavors to obtain the lower wage rates for all members. On March 12 the Association sent a letter to Respondent reminding it of Association's letter of May 18, 1970, regard- ing its reasons for refusing to accept Respondent's resignation at that time, and advised Respondent that if it still wished to resign it must do so between March 31 and April 30. By letter dated April 16 Respondent advised the Association of its resignation . By letter of April 19 the Association replied that Respondent's proffered resignation of April 16 would be sub- mitted to the Association's board of directors for its consider- ation. Meanwhile on March 23, D. C. Currie and Union Presi- dent George Sabattie met with Ohlhausen and his brother Marty at Respondent's plant for the purpose of discussing a grievance which had recently been made the subject of a letter from Respondent to its employees concerning their tardiness and absenteeism. Following a resolution of that grievance, Currie mentioned that the Union had approved the renewal bargaining contract . When Ohlhausen stated that he had not seen it, Curne went to his car and returned with a copy which he gave to him . Curve also asked whether Ohlhausen was going to remain in the Association. He replied that he did not now, and had until April 30 to decide. Before leaving the meeting, Sabattie asked Marty Ohlhausen whether he would continue to recognize the Union if he decided to leave the Association. Marty replied that he did not know and asked Sabattie to call him when he (Sabattie) returned from a trip to Washington On March 26, Sabattie telephoned Respond- ent and asked Howard Ohlhausen if he had decided to remain in the Association. Ohlhausen replied that he didn't know and would let him know later. He never called back. 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On March 23 , Ohlhausen again met with Currie and told him he would be willing to meet to negotiate a separate contract 6 Currie did not allude to this meeting in his tes- timony . According to Ohlhausen , Currie called him on April 22 and asked whether he would sign the contract negotiated with the Association. He refused and reiterated his willing- ness to negotiate a separate contract with the Union , and they agreed to meet on April 27. According to Currie he refused to negotiate a separate agreement when requested and stated that Respondent was part of the Association with which they had just negotiated a contract and was bound by it. Currie also denied setting up a meeting for April 27. Following this conversation, Currie called Union Attorney Robert Plotkin, told him about Ohlhausen 's refusal to accept the Association contract, and asked for his advice. Plotkin replied that he would call him back after contacting Mr. Goldstein, Re- spondent's attorney. Currie thereafter received a call from Plotkin and was advised to attend a meeting in his office on April 23. Plotkin testified that he called Goldstein after receiving Currie's call and told him that he refused to negotiate a separate agreement as requested because Respondent was bound by the Association contract, and in support expounded on the applicable case law . They then agreed to meet in Plotkin's office with their respective clients. The parties and their attorneys then met on April 23. Plotkin reiterated his refusal to negotiate a separate agreement . He also denied Goldstein's claim that a meeting had been set up for April 27 to negotiate a separate agreement , and again referred him to the applicable case law regarding withdrawal from multiem- ployer bargaining units. According to Goldstein , he told Plot- kin in their telephone conversation that they already had a meeting set up but Plotkin requested that they should get their respective people together, and they arranged to meet on April 23 at which time Plotkin stated that Respondent was bound by the Association contract, and that he was calling off their scheduled meeting for April 27. In support of Respondent's contention that unusual cir- cumstances justified its refusal to accept the Association con- tract, Ohlhausen testified that the Company was unable to operate with the wage scale set up in the Association contract because of competitive conditions in the industry , and that Respondent had suffered a severe decline in its business since 1968 because of its uncompetitive wage scale which caused it to lose its biggest customer A-1 Sanitary Rag Company to one of the four companies which had been favored with a lower wage scale in the 1968 supplemental agreement; as a result of which Respondent lost 25 percent of its business and reduced its employee complement from about 52 in 1968 to about 17 at present. C. Conclusions The law is well-settled that a multiemployer bargaining relationship can be terminated only upon mutual consent, express or implied, or by a timely withdrawal prior to com- mencement of negotiations for a future contract. After bar- gaining has commenced a withdrawal is effective only if ac- quiesced in by the Union or justified by unusual circumstances. Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 395. The policy behind these requirements is to promote stability in collective bargaining and has been applied by the courts.' The record is clear that Respondent did not unequivocally According to Ohlhausen he was unaware of any negotiations between the Association and the Union He admitted, however, that when he at- tempted to resign from the Association in April he knew that negotiations for a renewal contract had already begun ' N.LR B v Sheridan Creations, Inc, 357 F 2d 245 (C A. 2), enfg. 148 NLRB 1503, NLR.B v Paskesz, 405 F 2d 1201 (C A. 2), enfg 171 NLRB resign from the Association until April 16 when it sent a letter to that effect to both the Association and the Union. This admittedly occurred after Ohlhausen knew that bargaining negotiations had already begun between the Association and the Union. It, therefore, follows that Respondent cannot base a withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining unit on timely notice to that effect. However, as indicated above, an employer's untimely withdrawal may, nevertheless, be effec- tive if based on mutual consent or on unusual circumstances. Respondent also contends that the Union consented to bargain separately with it. It asserts that Currie's letter of January 25 constituted either a consent or an invitation to negotiate a separate agreement with the Union. I find that the notice of intention to amend the contract was consistent with, and required by, article XXVIII of the 1968-71 contract. Nor does the language of the letter per se clearly indicate an acknowledgement of a preexisting plan or arrangement to negotiate separately with Respondent. While the record, as pointed out by Respondent, does not show that such a notice was sent to the other members of the Association, neither does it appear that it was not sent. I find further that although Respondent was seeking a lower wage scale through separate bargaining with the Union because of competitive conditions in the industry, the Union was not receptive and kept questioning Respondent repeat- edly regarding its intention to remain in the Association, to continue recognizing the Union, and to accept the contract negotiated with the Association. Despite these inquiries, Re- spondent kept deferring its decision until the April 22 meet- ing with Currie, when Ohlhausen announced his refusal to accept the Association contract and requested negotiations for a separate contract. Currie emphatically denied either agreeing to negotiate or to meet on April 27 for that purpose. Testimony of their respective attorneys also sharply conflicts as to whether Plotkin acknowledged that a meeting had al- ready been set for April 27 to negotiate a separate contract or whether he canceled said meeting. The law is well-settled that any union acquiescence to an employer's withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit "must be clearly and unmistakably established and is not lightly to be inferred.' Based on Ohlhausen's undenied indecision regarding Re- spondent's intentions to remain in the Association and/or accept the Association contract, his evasiveness as to what transpired during the negotiations for the 1968-71 contract regarding the lower wage scale discussed at that time, and his failure to announce his withdrawal from the Association at the general membership meeting of the Association on April 13 when the members voted to accept the renewal contract over his opposition, I credit Currie's testimony that he never agreed to negotiate separately with Respondent or fixed a date to do so.' I, therefore, conclude that the Union neither waived the untimeliness of Respondent's notice to withdraw from the multiemployer bargaining unit nor consented to bargain separately with Respondent. Apparently, Respond- ent was agreeable to having the Association bargain on its behalf as long as it appeared possible for it to obtain advanta- geous terms. It procrastinated in announcing its refusal to No 20 Cloverleaf Division of Adams Dairy Co, 147 NLRB 1410, 1412 'It appears that Sabattie was the chief negotiator for the Union, and while Currie attended the negotiations he did so in order to report thereon to the union members It is more than likely that Currie would not assume the authority to authorize new negotiations or set a date for a meeting to negotiate Even assuming that a date was set for the parties to meet with their principals, it would no more follow that they agreed to negotiate than that they agreed to discuss whether or not to negotiate UNELKO CORPORATION accept the new contract until the terms were finally agreed on and did not include the changes it sought. Respondent also relies on unusual circumstances as justifi- cation for refusing to accept the renewal contract. It asserts an inability to compete with those Association members who had been favored with a lower employee wage scale in both the expired and renewal contracts, and that as a result it has suffered a marked decline in its business. It appears, however, that Ohlhausen, a member of the Association's bargaining committee in 1968 , was aware of the fact that the Association at that time had agreed to a lower wage scale for certain qualifying members. Even assuming, as he contends, that he was unaware of the existence of the Supplemental Agreement fixing the wage rates and identifying the beneficiaries of those rates, he, nevertheless, had been put on notice regarding the matter and, if concerned or vitally affected, he should have looked into it. Moreover, by his own admission he became aware of the Supplemental Agreement in or about the begin- ning of March and obtained a copy on April 2. Yet, he procrastinated until April 22 in announcing to the Union his decision not to accept the new Association contract, by which time agreement had been reached on it. He also deferred resigning from the Association until April 16. Even granting that his resignation effectively dissolved Respondent's mem- bership, it did not bind the Union insofar as their contractual relationship was concerned. Furthermore, Respondent was certainly aware of the de- cline of its business long prior to April 22 when it notified the Union of its refusal to accept the negotiated renewal contract. This is not a situation in which an employer realizes after contract negotiations had begun that because of a change in business conditions he will be unable to adhere to a newly negotiated bargaining contract. Respondent simply post- poned committing itself until it ascertained that the agree- ment reached was not to its liking, and then decided to seek negotiations for a more advantageous contract. In these cir- cumstances Respondent's reliance on Spun-Jee Corp., 171 NLRB No. 64, is misplaced. I find that the instant case is more akin to N.L.R.B. v. Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 367 F.2d 55 (C.A. 10). In that case the employer urged that effect be given to its withdrawal from the association because the wage scale then being seriously considered was excessively hi*h with respect to its employees and would be financially ruinous. The court stated (pp. 58): However, to allow withdrawal from the multi-employer bargaining unit because negotiations are apprehended by one of the group members to be progressing toward an agreement which would be economically burdensome insofar as it is concerned, would be disruptive to the stability of the group collective bargaining process As the trial examiner observed, . some responsibility must rest upon the employer who invokes the advan- tages of group bargaining to assess and assume the re- sponsibilities and limitations inherent therein " I, therefore, conclude that Respondent has not justified its refusal to accept the renewal contract based on unusual cir- cumstances. Subsequent to the close of the hearing, Respondent submit- ted a brief, in which it attacked the sufficiency of the General Counsel's case on the ground that the 1971-74 bargaining contract, an allegedly requisite element in the case, was nei- ther offered nor admitted in evidence, and suggested reopen- ing the record for that purpose, By letter of August 22, I solicited a statement of position from the General Counsel in the matter, and granted leave to the other parties to submit replies. Following the receipt of the General Counsel's state- ment, Respondent formally moved to reopen the record. The General Counsel and Charging Party thereupon filed opposi- 239 tion to the motion. The motion is hereby denied. As indicated by the General Counsel, Respondent in its answer to the complaint admitted that a renewal collective-bargaining con- tract with the Union was ratified on April 22 by members of the Association. Ohlhausen also admitted the ratification of the contract by testifying that he told Currie he refused to sign the contract which had been negotiated with the As- sociation. I find that the admissions of Respondent regarding the 1971-74 contract adequately established its existence in- sofar as necessary or relevant for the relief requested herein. If Respondent wished to rely in any manner on the contract it had ample opportunity to do so during the hearing. Fur- thermore, inasmuch as the bargaining was conducted on a multiemployer basis, Respondent was bound to adhere to or accept any agreement executed as a result of the 1971 negotia- tions, and the admission of the new contract in evidence would not affect the result reached herein. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in sec- tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation- ship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce Upon the foregoing findings of facts and upon the entire record of this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer whose operations affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning pf Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. At all times relevant herein, the Union has been the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the employer-members of the Association, including Respond- ent, in the following appropriate unit: All production employees, employed by all employer mem- bers of the Association, who are engaged directly or in- directly in the processing or handling of waste materials, but excluding all production and other employees who are mem- bers of any other union, all office and clerical employees, shipping and receiving clerks, plant guards, professional em- ployees, maintenance men in the plants who have been his- torically excluded, truckdrivers, supervisors, and any other employees required to be excluded under the provisions of the Act. 4. By refusing, with respect to the aforesaid unit, to accept or adhere to the Association contract agreed on with the Union for the 1971-74 period, Respondent has violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent violated its bargain- ing obligation by repudiating the contract negotiated by the Association with the Union, it will be recommended that Respondent be required to assume the obligations of such contract and give retroactive effect thereto with respect to wages and other benefits from its effective date of May 1, 1971, over and above the amounts actually paid or given to unit employees. See N.L.R.B. v. Joseph Strong, 393 U.S. 357. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:10 ° In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of (Cont ) 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Respondent, Unelko Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to abide by the collective-bargaining agree- ment reached by the Waste Trade Industry of Chicago and Waste Material Handlers Union , Local 20467, United Trans- port Service Employees , AFL-CIO, with respect to its em- ployees in the following bargaining unit: All production employees , employed by all employer members of the Association, who are engaged directly or indirectly in the processing or handling of waste materi- als, but excluding all production and other employees who are members of any other union , all office and cleri- cal employees, shipping and receiving clerks, plant guards, professional employees, maintenance men in the plants who have been historically excluded, truckdnv- ers, supervisors, and any other employees required to be excluded under the provisions of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with , restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Forthwith, sign or otherwise manifest Respondent's adoption of the 1971-74 contract between the said Associa- tion and Union insofar as it applies to employees of Respond- ent in the above-described unit, and comply therewith to the extent indicated in the Remedy section of this Decision. (b) Post at its plant, in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 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 a 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 OR- DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " 11 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by it 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 the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board, having found, after trial, that we violated Federal law by refusing to adhere to and honor the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated be- tween Waste Trade Industry of Chicago and Waste Material Handlers Union, Local 20467, United Transport Service Em- ployees, AFL-CIO, with respect to the bargaining unit de- scribed therein, has ordered us to post this notice. WE WILL forthwith sign or otherwise manifest our adoption of the aforesaid agreement for the 1971-74 period, and give retroactive effect to the terms and condi- tions of said agreement from its effective date of May 1, 1971. WE WILL NOT, by refusing to adopt the said contract, or in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. UNELKO CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. 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, Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, Room 881, 219 South De's i orn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312- 3D3-7572.