General Drivers Local 749

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Drivers and Helpers , Local Union No. 749, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and American Colloid Company . Case 17-CB-892 February 18, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS PANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On October 29, 1971, Trial Examiner Paul E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Nat- 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 brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recom- mended 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 General Drivers and Helpers, Local Union No. 749, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recom- mended Order. By its duly filed answer Respondent admitted and denied various allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and for affirmative answer pled that there has never been a meeting of the minds and that the purported ratification of a purported agreement was invalid by reason of the fact that the membership of the Local Union involved ratified an offer other than that offered by the Com- pany. On the issues thus raised, the matter came on for hear- ing before me in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, on September 9, 1971. The Respondent and the General Counsel were represented at the hearing. Representatives of the Charging Party were present but filed no appearance. All parties had an oppor- tunity to adduce evidence, call witnesses, examine and cross- examine them, argue on the record and submit briefs. The General Counsel and Respondent both argued orally at the close of the hearing; a brief has been received from Respond- ent. Upon the entire record and in consideration of the brief, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in sev- eral States in the mining, processing, distribution and sale of Bentonite clay. It operates a transportation terminal at Scottsbluff, Nebraska, the facility involved in this proceeding. Annually the Company sells and distributes its products to a value in excess of $500,000 and annually sells goods and products and performs services valued in excess of $50,000 from its Nebraska operation directly to and for customers located outside the State of Nebraska. Additionally, at the Scottsbluff terminal the Company annually purchases goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppli- ers outside the State of Nebraska. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ' 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 PAUL E. WELL, Trial Examiner: On May 19, 1971, the American Colloid Company, hereinafter called the Com- pany, filed a charge with the Regional Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, alleging that General Drivers and Helpers, Local Un- ion No. 749, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter called Respondent, refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to execute an agreed-on collective-bargaining agreement and by insisting that the Company agree to changes in the terms of that agreement. On August 19, 1971, the Regional Director issued a complaint against Respondent with the same allegations as the charge. 195 NLRB No. 101 Factual Statement On August 26, 1970, Respondent was certified by the Board as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in a unit consisting of all over-the-road truck drivers, driver-warehousemen and mechanics stationed at the Company's Scottsbluff, Nebraska, terminal, excluding office-clerical employees, watchmen, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Respondent also represents a unit of production and mainte- nance employees at a plant in Belle Fourche, South Dakota, in which it has had an agreement since July 1, 1969. The parties commenced negotiating the terms of a contract on December 8, 9, and 10, 1970, recessed until January 25, by mutual agreement, and negotiated on the 25th, 26th, and 27th. The Union was represented throughout the negotiations by a business agent, Don Chmelka. On December 9 and 10 an employee, Herschel Hubbard, sat in with Chmelka and in the January negotiations another employee, Glenn Rietz, took Hubbard's place. The Employer was represented throughout the negotiations by Max D. Brooks, the Com- pany's director of personnel. Mr. Brooks was accompanied by Doyle Harding, the operations manager of the Company. GENERAL DRIVERS LOCAL 749 475 Throughout the negotiations most of the talking was done by Brooks and Chmelka. Prior to the commencement of negotiations Respondent submitted a list of demands. On December 8 the parties agreed that they would follow, wherever possible, the terms of the Belle Fourche contract and negotiate with that as a basis. Respondent announced and the Company acquiesced that the contract would have to be ratified by Respondent's membership . During the course of negotiations the parties agreed on many of the terms of the Bell Fourche contract. In addition the parties negotiated additional or different provi- sions in some regards . When agreement was reached on lan- guage Brooks would write out the agreement reached and give a copy to Chmelka either at the time of the writing or at their next meeting. At the close of the meeting of January 27 Brooks made a final offer of a package of economic items. All other provisions of the contract were to the negotiators' satisfaction apparently agreed on and Chmelka agreed to submit the completed contract to the membership for ratifica- tion with his recommendation that it be accepted. At this time Chmelka asked Brooks if the Company was willing to make the terms and conditions of the contract retroactive. Brooks stated that if ratification were accomplished by Feb- ruary 15 that he would see to it that the conditions were made retroactive to February 1. Shortly after the meeting of the 27th Chmelka informed Brooks that the ratification meeting would be conducted on February 13. Brooks told Chmelka that he would come to Scottsbluff on that day and would be available if Chmelka wanted to contact him. Among the provisions negotiated by the parties was one providing for the payment by the Company to a driver of an additional 20 cents per mile for "country deliveries." During the negotiations the definition of "country deliveries" was raised and Brooks stated that the Company defined the term as deliveries at least 3 miles from Federal, state or county maintained highways . The Union's negotiators took excep- tion to this definition stating that the Company had always paid for country deliveries for any delivery more than 3 miles from the city limits. After consultation Brooks stated that he understood that this had been done at times, but it was not the rule, and that the agreement he was prepared to enter into was for the payment only under circumstances of deliveries at least 3 miles off Federal, state and county maintained highways The discussion apparently ended with his state- ment that the Company would pay the bonus as it had in the past only for deliveries falling within the Company's defini- tion. Another issue between the parties was a provision for the payment to the driver of $3 for each delivery in addition to the first on any one load. The Company offered this provision after the first year of a 3-year contract, although the Union wanted it applied immediately . According to the testimony of Brooks, agreement was reached on the issue at the negotia- tion session of January 25 that it would become effective in the second year of the contract. The third major issue between the parties had to do with the wage rate which was based on mileage driven by each of the employees . The Company, prior to the organization by Respondent , had paid a mileage rate of 6 cents a mile plus a subsistence allowance up to $6.50 a day for meals and the motel bills incurred by drivers who had to lay over on the road. According to Brooks' testimony he computed on the basis of the 1969 figures that the meal and hotel bills cost the Company roughly 1.4 cents per mile driven . This is based on the computation that the drivers averaged 100,000 miles a year Because of the bookwork involved Brooks proposed to add 1.5 cents to the mileage figure and the driver would pay his own lodging and meals.' On February 13 Brooks received a telephone call from Chmelka during the evening in which Chmelka said that he was having trouble selling the mileage figure to the em- ployees. According to Brooks' testimony he told Chmelka that if the employees wanted it the old way that his offer would stand of 8.5 cents a mile the first year , 9 cents the second year, 9.5 the third year, but that the employees could have the option of reducing the offer by 5 cents and the Employer would continue to pay meals and lodging as it had in the past . Chmelka called Brooks back an hour or more later and told him that the employees had ratified the con- tract and that they had decided on the 8 . 5-, 9- and 9.5-cent figures.' After the meeting of February 13, Brooks had his secretary type up the contract and sent it to Chmelka . The record is not clear as to when it was received, but after he sent it Brooks waited a week or more and called Chmelka to find out if he had received it. Chmelka said he had received it, but had not had a chance to read it . Brooks then suggested that he read it and check it over which Chmelka agreed to do. A week later Brooks called Chmelka again and asked him if the con- tract met with his approval . Chmelka said it did except that it did not contain a provision for a one -half day holiday before Christmas, agreed to during the negotiations. Brooks ac- knowledged that that was his mistake and that he would prepare a proposal containing that provision . The two then agreed to meet on March 27 to sign the agreement, according to Brooks' testimony. In the meantime on February 15 Brooks informed the plant clerical staff that they should compute the paychecks in ac- cordance with the schedule contained in the contract and prepare retroactive payments from February 1. It appeared that it was not until the semimonthly paycheck of March 15 that the employees first received checks computed under the new schedules. On March 27 Brooks and Harding, representing the Com- pany, met with Respondent's Secretary-Treasurer and Busi- ness Agent Clem Weber, Chmelka, Rietz and a group of the employees in the company offices Director of Personnel Brooks brought the contracts in the number that he had been informed by Chmelka in their last conversation would be required, and the corrected page to include the additional half day that was omitted from the original draft He inserted the page in all the copies of the agreement. Business Agent Weber then stated that the union group felt that they had been misinformed and had some definite areas of contention and that they would not sign the contract as long as the areas were not resolved . He then read off a list of items which, according to the testimony of Brooks, numbered about 12 items, but according to the testimony of Weber, had 10 items on it, which he indicated the parties had not reached agreement on. When Weber said that the men had been mis- led or misinformed , Brooks reacted strongly and told Weber ' It appears that a problem resulted from the fact that all of the tractors driven by the Company's drivers have sleeping accommodations in them Nevertheless, under some circumstances the drivers preferred to sleep in motels The only testimony with regard to use of sleeping accommodations was offered by an employee who testified that prior to the contract he normally averaged about 2 nights a week sleeping in motels at company expense He also testified that he normally averaged 2,500 miles a week, but that he drove 100,000 miles in 1970 The employee , Mr Johnston , testified that since the contract was entered into, since February 1, until the weather warmed up he averaged 1 or maybe a little more nights per week in the motel Apparently after mid -March he has slept in the cab of his truck. ' These figures include a '/,-cent bonus which had also been paid prior to the union organization 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the Company had negotiated in a fair and open manner and had no intention of misleading anyone, to which Weber responded that he meant to say that the employees were misrepresented by their own people . He read off the list of items which included the matter of the 20 cents extra for country deliveries, the effective date of the $3 pickups, the inclusion of meals and lodging in the mileage rates and vari- ous other items. Brooks took the position that the Company had bargained and reached a contract and they were not about to renegotiate the contract and he declined to negotiate further about the items read off by Weber on his list. The union group called a recess for 10 to 15 minutes. When they came back into the room Weber stated that he had explained to the drivers that there had been some apparent agreement reached in these areas and suggested that the Union had boiled the problem down to three specific items. One was the effective date of the additional $3 pickup charge and the other two concerned the unloading rate and the meals and lodging. Brooks reiterated that the Company contended that it had a ratified agreement and they were not there to negotiate any items, but he said that there could be no mistake in the Company's proposal as to the effective date of the additional pickup, but if it would sell the issue he would move the effective date of that pickup to the beginning of the contract. Weber replied that he had to have all three items or there would be no contract . Brooks told Weber to forget it and said he was not negotiating, that he was willing to move up the date and that was all. Weber asked if the Company was refusing to bargain. Brooks answered, "you are absolutely correct," and the meeting broke up. Weber testified that the list from which he read contained 10 items of issues on which there were great misunderstand- ings. The items were as follows: 1. Effective date of $3 pickup charge. 2. Whether lodgings were to be paid on layovers of less than 24 hours. 3. Brooms and shovels. 4. Definition of unloading limits, whether it was 3 miles off city limits or 3 miles off Federal, state or county maintained highways. 5. Whether bonuses were figured into vacation pay. 6. Whether bonus deductions were subject to griev- ances. 7. Funeral leave. 8. Pallets. 9. Whether drivers were responsible for pallets lost and had to pay for them. 10. Whether drivers would have deductions from theii bonuses because of overloads. Respondent produced testimony that on the night of the ratification meeting Business Representative Chmelka was drunk and misinformed members present as to the contract which was being put up to them for ratification . Chmelka testified, but had very little recollection of exactly what he said . He recalled that he presented to the employees an alter- native of 8.5, 9 and 9 .5, not to include meals, but did not tell the employees that this did not include lodging . He also told the employees that they had an alternate offer of 6.5, 7.5 and 8.5 which would include meals and lodging . He testified also that he told the employees that the effective date of the $3 additional pay for a second pickup would be in 1971 , the first year of the contract, and he told the people with regard to the 20-cent bonus for country deliveries that they would be paid the same as they had been doing it. Discussion and Conclusions The Respondent contends that there was no meeting of the minds because three of the provisions of the contract were not the same as had been negotiated, and that, additionally, the contract did not contain three other items that had been negotiated. With respect to the latter Respondent is referring to a demand by the Union that pallets be provided for all bagged products because they were easier for the employees to handle. The only evidence with regard to it was that of Brooks who testified that the Company summarily turned down the proposal on the grounds that it was too expensive to the Company and provided no benefit to the Employer, that pallets were provided to some customers because they were required but , because of the fact that pallets were easily lost and were expensive to purchase, it was not economical to provide them for all customers . This matter was raised early in negotiations and was never raised again after his reaction. The second item referred to a demand that the Employer furnish brooms , shovels and cab heaters for the use of the employees as well as handtrucks and racks to put the hand- trucks in. Brooks testified in this regard that this matter was discussed at the meeting of December 9 and that he re- sponded that the Company would not furnish brooms and shovels because they were easily lost and difficult to account for. Further he refused to furnish handtrucks, but agreed to have racks installed on the trailers to store handtrucks if the men wished to supply their own. There was apparently no great discussion about heaters. Employee Herschel Hubbard testified that when the matter was brought up the Company said they would not furnish handtrucks, shovels and brooms and they did not need to put into the contract a provision that they would furnish radios and air conditioners because they already furnished those. He went on to testify: Chmelka and I talked and then came back and told them we would take off two-wheel hand trucks and the com- pany would furnish the balance of the stuff, including the air conditioners and radios and put it in writing, and they agreed to it. At the end of December 9 negotiating session, as was cus- tomary, Brooks wrote out the following provision: The company agrees to provide a carrying rack for a two wheel hand cart on each trailer. In addition the company will provide air conditioning and radios on company owned over the road tractors . The company shall be granted a reasonable amount of time to install the above mentioned articles upon the acquisition of additional equipment. Chmelka was not asked about the negotiations at any point. I conclude that the union negotiators accepted the Em- ployer's language. I note that even in his post hoc testimony Hubbard does not contend that the union negotiators insisted that a provision be made for furnishing brooms and shovels and nothing in the testimony indicates that any point was made about cab heaters . This conclusion is supported by the fact that the language was furnished almost immediately to Chmelka, yet the matter was never brought up again in the negotiations and it was not until March 27 that the matter appeared on Weber's list along with other items some of which Respondent stipulated had been agreed to in negotia- tions. I believe that Respondent, on concluding that the negotiations could be reopened , fought to attempt again to get the Company to furnish this equipment , but that agreement had been reached that it would not be furnished. GENERAL DRIVERS LOCAL 749 477 The third item advanced by Respondent as not having been included in the contract was a provision that the Company would advance money to the drivers for the payment of driv- er's expenses. According to Brooks the matter was brought up and he told Chmelka on January 27 that the Company had always advanced money to the drivers and expected to con- tinue to do so. At no time did the Union ever ask that this commitment be put in the contract and it was not put in the contract. With regard the additional 20 cents a ton for country deliv- eries the entire dispute between the parties in the beginning was the definition of "country deliveries." The Union con- tends that country delivery had always meant 3 miles beyond the city limits and that, when the Employer's spokesman agreed that they would do it as they had always done, the Union understood it to mean 3 miles beyond the city limits. I believe the testimony of Brooks that the rule always has been 3 miles off a Federal, state or county maintained high- way, but that there had been many breaches of the rule, so that commonly employees attempted to charge, and fre- quently succeeded, for any delivery outside the city. I found enlightening the testimony of Glenn Rietz, called by the Re- spondent, that prior to the contract negotiations he had had trouble collecting the 20 cents for deliveries to a ranch in New Castle, which is farther than 3 miles from town, but has an oil driveway going into the yard causing the Employer to claim that it was no country delivery. He testified that both before and after the negotiations " it was just a no-no to put it down, you just don't do that because it had an oil driveway going in there." I concluded that the employees well knew the rule, but hoped to have it changed. I conclude also that Respondent, rather than finding an ambiguity or a misappre- hension on the part of the employees, attempted to secure new negotiations of the terms already agreed to. With regard to the effective date of the second pickup charge, Respondent contends that the agreement was that the effective date would be in 1971 and that at the March 27 meeting Brooks admitted that he had made a mistake. Brooks' testimony was to the contrary that he stated that, in order to have the contract signed on that date and avoid further controversy, he would say that he had made a mistake and change the effective date to 1971 rather than 1972. It is noteworthy that again no controversy regarding the effective date arose until March 27 although prior to that time Rietz, as well as Business Representative Chmelka, had gone over the contract and had told the Employer that it was correct except for the omission of the half-day holiday prior to Christmas which the Employer had corrected by March 27. I find that the agreement was that the $3 charge would com- mence in the beginning of 1972 but that the Union, faced with the dissatisfaction of the employees with the paychecks they received on March 15 reflecting the changed contract, at- tempted to secure a renegotiation of this provision. I find that the Employer's reaction to their demand, of offering to move the effective date to 1971, was a conciliatory move on its part for the purpose of getting a signed contract immediately and not an admission that the draft contract was incorrect. Finally, with regard to the mileage dispute, I am struck by the testimony of the employees who testified about the meet- ing at which they voted to accept the contract that Chmelka was so drunk that he had trouble finding his notes and read- ing to them, that he had trouble explaining the terms of the contract and that he was hard to understand Although Rietz had been present when the agreement was made and presum- ably attentive to the negotiations, he does not appear to have made any submission to the employees with regard to that provisio., of the contract. I conclude that, when Chmelka telephoned Brooks and reported to the employees that they had an alternative, his condition was such that the employees did not really understand what the alternatives were. I con- cluded from Chmelka's testimony that he was not prepared to say that he told the employees that the cent and a half added to the 6.5-cent mileage did not include lodging but rather that he did not tell them that this did not include lodging. I believe that his explanation was confused and pos- sibly contradictory and that the thought that meals were included but lodging was not was an afterthought on his, or the employees', part. It is clear that at no time during the negotiations did the Employer split meals and lodging in its consideration. The only alternatives were the inclusion of or exclusion of both meals and lodging together. However, that is not to say that I find that Chmelka explained anything clearly at this meeting. In normal contract law, a party who communicates the acceptance of an agreement through an agent is bound by the agent's acts or statements.' I found above that the only provi- sion of the contract as to which there was any doubt or confusion was the mileage charge and that the doubt or con- fusion raised thereby was occasioned only by the failure of Chmelka, in his drunken condition, to satisfactorily explain to the employees the alternatives. The Respondent contends that, because the employees did not understand the alterna- tives, there was no meeting of the minds when they signified their approval of the contract, the condition on which accept- ance by the Union depended. The Union was the sole deter- minant of its spokesman. That it chose to be represented by an inept business representative was solely its business. That he did not drive as hard a bargain as the employees might have wished may have been unfortunate, but they had the opportunity, through the provision that ratification was re- to see to it that the bargain he drove was satisfactory quired, to them. Under these circumstances it is their responsibility, not the Employer's, to understand what it is that they are asked to ratify, if, in fact, Chmelka was as drunk as he was made out to be by the testimony. Rietz was present to be asked about the deal that had been made. In addition, Chmelka presumably had with him the written language of the Employer's offer and the only variation therefrom was the alternative offer of the reduction of the mileage offer by 1.5 cents and the resumption or continuation by the Employer of its custom of paying meals and lodging. As I see it, the Respondent is caught on the horns of a dilemma; either Chmelka was too drunk to report the alternatives, in which case the employees were willing to gamble that they had a good deal, or he was not too drunk, in which case the em- ployees ratified the contract as it was offered and are now seeking to change it because it doesn't work out as well as they had hoped. In either case, I find, there is no duty on the part of the Employer to renegotiate and the Respondent has a duty to sign the contract as it is offered to it. That it has refused to sign the contract under these circumstances is clearly a violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act and I so find. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union has refused to bargain with American Col- loid Company within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. ' Williston on Contracts, 3d ed , § 94 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, my recommended Order will require that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following recom- mended:' ORDER Respondent, General Drivers and Helpers, Local Union No. 749, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from refusing upon request of Ameri- can Colloid Company to execute a formal contract embody- ing the terms and conditions of employment agreed on by the parties in the negotiations of 1970 and 1971 and ratified by the employees on February 13, 1971, and from attempting to force the Employer to bargain further with regard to the terms and conditions contained therein. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Execute and submit to American Colloid Company a formal contract embodying the terms and conditions of em- ployment agreed on by the parties. (b) Post at the Union's office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by an official representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to its mem- bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ' 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 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 ' 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 " (c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 17, signed copies of the notice for posting by the Employer, if it is willing, at all locations where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of 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 after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found , after a trial, that we violated Federal law by refusing to sign the contract with American Colloid Company: WE WILL execute and submit to American Colloid Company a formal contract embodying the terms and conditions of employment agreed on and ratified by the employees on February 13, 1971. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the American Colloid Company or attempt during the term of a valid agreement to force it to renegotiate any terms or condi- tions embodied in our contract with that Company. GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 749, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) 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, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Mis- souri 64106, Telephone 816-374-5181.