Ryder Technical Institute

570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Radio Television Technical School, Inc. t/a Ryder Technical Institute and Local 773, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America. Case 4-CA-5504 October 10, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On April 28, 1972, Trial Examiner Herzel H. E. Plaine issued his Decision in this proceeding. There- after, Respondent filed exceptions and a 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 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, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order.' The Trial Examiner properly concluded that it would not accord with Board policy to defer to the decision of the arbitrator who ruled that Respondent was under no obligation to pay the 1970 Christmas bonus because it was a gift or gratuity and therefore a "purely a discretionary matter." As the Trial Exam- iner observed, the arbitrator "ignored a long line of Board and Court precedent construing the Act" as requiring employers to bargain about such payments where, as here, they were a regular and well estab- lished part of the employees' compensation. Accord- ingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner, on the basis of the test laid down in Spielberg Manufacturing Com- pany, 112 NLRB 1084, and recently reiterated in Col- lyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB No. 150, that the Board is not bound by the arbitrator's award which was "clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act."2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Radio Television Technical School, Inc. t/a Ryder Technical Institute, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting: Contrary to my colleagues, I would honor the award of the arbitrator as to the Christmas bonus and would dismiss the complaint in this case. I agree with the recent decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in N.L.R.B. v. Progress Bulletin Co., 443 F.2d 1369 (1971), "that the bringing of a case such as this is an imposition on the board and the courts." ' Respondent has requested oral argument This request is hereby denied because the record, the exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties 2 Member Fanning finds the dissent unpersuasive In his opinion , Member Kennedy does not address himself to the principal issue, namely, whether the arbitrator's award is "repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act " Although the dissent cites NLRB. v. Progress Bulletin Company, 443 F.2d 1369 (C.A 9), which states that cases involving the question of deferral to arbitration are "an imposition on the board and the courts," Member Fan- ning regards that declaration as dictum in view of the court's action in nevertheless deciding the case by holding that the Board was correct in finding that the issue of the employer's discontinuance of the Christmas bonus "was not required to be arbitrated" and that the employer's conduct constituted a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(aX5) and ( 1) of the Act. The dissent relies on NLRB. v Progress Bulletin Co., supra, which involved the question of whether the Board should initially defer to the contractual grievance-arbitration procedure While Member Penello might agree with deferring in that sitation, he, however, is of the view that the issue presented here is different in that we have arbitration award before us and therefore, unlike in Progress Bulletin Co, must determine whether the Spiel- berg standards have been met. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HERZEL H. E. PLAINS, Trial Examiner: Respondent, a technical trade school with locations in three cities, had a collective-bargaining contract with the Charging Party (the Union), covering the instructors and laboratory assistants of the school at Allentown, Pennsylvania. This was a first contract, for the period October 1970 to October 1971, fol- lowing certification of the Union in the summer of 1970. At Christmas time 1970, Respondent discontinued, without bargaining with the Union, a Christmas payment to the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school, customarily made each year for the previous 20 years, originally in the form of useful articles of value and in more recent years in cash. Respondent nevertheless con- tinued to make the Christmas payment to the nonunion employees of the school, including the instructors and labo- ratory assistants at the other two school locations in Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania, and Pennsauken, New Jersey. The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally discontinuing the Christmas payment to its un- ion employees without bargaining with the Union.' At the time of trial the discontinuance encompassed Christmas 1971 as well as Christmas 1970. Respondent contends that the Christmas payments were gifts and not part of wages, and that its (initial) collec- tive-bargaining contract with the employees did not em- 1 While the Union's charge, filed March 12, 1971, also claimed a violation of Section 8(a)(3), on the ground of discrimination between union and non- union employees and alleged reprisal against the union employees for selec- tion and support of the Union , the complaint, filed December 17, 1971, did not include an 8(a)(3) allegation 199 NLRB No. 85 RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE body any obligation to continue to make such payments. General Counsel and the Union contend that the Christmas payments had been regularized into an annual bonus that was part of the employees' compensation, and that the con- tract provisions for maintenance of conditions of employ- ment relating to wages, hours, and overtime differential that were in effect at the time of signing the agreement continued Respondent's obligation to pay the Christmas bonus and imposed the resultant duty (flowing from Section 8(a)(5) of the Act) to refrain from altering the obligation without no- tice to, and opportunity for, the Union to bargain about any change. A second, indeed preliminary, issue is whether there should be a decision on the merits in view of the fact that the Union took the matter to arbitration under its collective- bargaining contract with the Respondent and the arbitrator decided (in July 1971) that Respondent was not required "to pay 1970 cash bonus to instructors of Allentown" school. The issue turns on whether deference should be given to the arbitrator's award. While it would have been logical to decide, and no doubt preferable to have been able to decide, the prelimi- nary issue of giving or refusing deference to the arbitrator's award without a full trial before the Board, it became appar- ent in the opening argument at trial that there was no record of agreed facts, or facts found by the arbitrator, upon which a fair ruling could be made. Accordingly, the case was tried in full on January 26-27, 1972, at Allentown, Pennsylvania. General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation operating, for profit, schools for the teaching of trades in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The complaint involves the Allentown, Pennsylvania, school. In the conduct of its business Respondent has had annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and has made annual purchases of goods valued in excess of $3,000 from points directly outside Pennsylvania. Respondent is engaged, as it admitted, in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is, as Respondent also admitted, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. The Christmas Payments Respondent's employees comprise instructors, labora- tory assistants, directors and assistant directors of the schools (some of whom also carry teaching loads as instruc- tors), salesman or recruiters, and library, office, and mainte- nance personnel. At the Allentown school there are 15 full-time instruc- tors, including assistant directors who also instruct, 2 part- time instructors, and 4 laboratory assistants, according to 571 instructor Robert Milot, who has served as union steward for the 2 bargaining units of instructors and laboratory assistants, respectively, at the Allentown school since their unionization in 1970. Having a certain number of directors or assistant directors at the schools at all times when func- tioning is required by state law governing technical schools, according to Respondent's President Michael Freedland. President Freedland testified that in 1950 he began the practice of giving employees Christmas gifts, such as sports jackets, trays, wallets, hams, and turkeys; but that in 1965 or 1966 he switched to money payments. Freedland claimed to have used each employee's work performance, longevity, enthusiasm, recommendation of his supervisor, and Respondent's financial condition in deciding on the size of the Christmas payment to each. Nevertheless it appeared from Freedland's testimony that every employee (including the supervisors) received a Christmas payment, and from the record of payments (Exh. GC-2), as clarified by Freed- land and Milot, that at least in the case of the instructors and laboratory assistants at the Allentown school, a pattern had emerged with the cash payments in the 4 years of 1966 through 1969. Thus it appeared, as in 1969, that full-time instructors with service of 1 year and over were receiving a Christmas payment of $50, and that those instructors with less than 1 year service, and part-time instructors and laboratory assist- ants, were receiving a Christmas payment of $25. Assistant directors, such as Fred Heck and Leibensperger, received $200, Director Frey received $300, and the overall executive director of all three schools, Robert Reidy, received $500.2 On payments of over $25, Respondent made income tax and social security tax withholdings pursuant to Internal Revenue Service Regulations (which apparently exempts from withholding payments of $25 or less). B. The Initial Contract Negotiations and Terms The bargaining unit of Allentown school instructors was certified by the Board June 22, 1970, and the bargaining unit of Allentown school laboratory assistants was certified July 2, 1970, both represented by the Union. Thereafter the Union and Respondent engaged in collective bargaining, resulting in the initial 1-year contract that went into effect October 1, 1970. The Christmas payment or bonus was not directly and specifically the subject of bargaining between the parties and was not mentioned as such in the contract. However, Steward Milot, who was active in the contract negotiations, testified without contradiction that the union negotiators argued the need for a "catch-all" clause that would save 2 Exh. GC-2, as clarified by the testimony, erroneously shows Heck as only an "instructor," whereas he was an assistant director carrying a full teaching load as well. Liebensperger, who formerly taught, is shown as " supervisor" and presently devotes fulltime to director's duties as does Frey. Mildos, also shown on the exhibit as only "instructor," came to the school and left in the period covered by the exhibit, starting as instructor and later assuming addi- tional duties as guidance counsellor and assistant director before he left in early 1970. His bonuses of $100 in 1968 and $150 in 1969 apparently were related to the accretion in duties and responsibilities . Heck, though an assist- ant director as well as instructor, has been a member of the bargaining unit of instructors 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD existent conditions of employment affecting wages and working conditions, that he (Milot) referred in the discus- sion to such things as sick time, coffeebreaks, free cleaning of uniforms, and Christmas payment or bonus, and that the parties adopted and included in the contract a "Mainte- nance of Standards" article IV, which reads in pertinent part: (a) Protection of Conditions The Employer agrees that all conditions of em- ployment relating to wages, hours of work, and overtime differentials shall be maintained at not less than the highest standards in effect at the time of the signing of this agreement and the conditions of em- ployment shall be improved wherever specific provi- sions for improvement are made elsewhere in this agreement.... This provision does not give the Em- ployer the right to impose or continue wages, hours and working conditions less than those herein contained in this agreement. C. The Unilateral Discontinuance of the Christmas Payment Respondent's President Freedland testified that-in late November or early December 1970, after consultation with his lawyer, he decided not to make the Christmas payment for 1970 to the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school, but to continue to make the payment to the other employees of all three schools. President Freedland told Union Steward Milot of his decision and asked, said Milot, that he notify the Allentown instructors and laboratory assistants that there would be no Christmas bonus. Freedland testified that he did not offer to bargain about the matter. Milot said the men would be disappointed and dissatisfied. Steward Milot notified his fellows, many of whom told him they were counting upon the bonus. Instructor Remaly said he regarded the bonus as part of his pay and if the Union did not file a grievance he intended to file on his own. When Christmas 1970 came and went without payment of the bonus to the bargaining unit employees, employee Remaly filed a grievance for himself and Steward Milot filed a grievance for all of the Allentown instructors and laboratory assistants in January 1971. There was a formal denial of the grievance by Respondent on February 5, 1971, following which union representatives and Director Frey, for the Respondent, discussed the matter. Steward Milot contended that the "Maintenance of Standards" article of the contract saved the employees' right to the bonus, and Frey replied it was the school's position that the bonus had been a gift which it could discontinue at will. Milot count- ered that the employees had always received the bonus and expected it, and thought it was being taken away from them for having joined the Union. The Union and Respondent agreed to arbitrate the matter under the grievance procedure of the contract; but the Union also filed an unfair labor practice charge on March 12, 1971, alleging violations by Respondent of Sec- tion 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. An arbitrator was selected on April 5, 1971, from a list provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. On April 15 the Regional Director declined to pro- ceed further on the unfair labor practice charge, and the Board's Office of Appeals said on May 20 that it would await the arbitrator's award. The arbitrator made his award, discussed below, on July 27, 1971, and on November 30, 1971, the Board's Office of Appeals directed the Region to issue a complaint. As already indicated, the complaint now being tried was issued on December 17, 1971, charging violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) but omitting any 8(a)(3) allegation. D. The Arbitrator's Award Arbitrator Miles E. Hoffman made his award on July 27, 1971. He ruled that Respondent would not be required to pay a 1970 cash bonus to the instructors (and laboratory assistants) of the Allentown school. The arbitrator had before him the issue of whether the Christmas payments of Respondent had become by practice and arrangement a part of the precontract compensation of the instructors and laboratory assistants, and if so whether this form of compensation had been carried over and con- tinued under the contract, as a result of the contract nego- tiations and contract provision protecting preexisting conditions respecting compensation. Unfortunately the arbitrator failed to deal with the issue presented, which is also the issue presented by the unfair labor practice complaint. Instead, the arbitrator avoided the issue by resting his decision on the dictum that the Christmas bonus was inherently a gratuity from the employer, paid "entirely at the will of the employer," that could not have become part of the employer's contractual obligation in the matter of wages unless it were spelled out "in detail" as a "fringe benefit" of the contract. E. The Renewal Contract Negotiations The initial contract between Respondent and the Un- ion on behalf of the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school expired on September 30, 1971. In its list of employee proposals for the renewal nego -tiations, given by the Union to Respondent under date Au- gust 11, 1971, included in the 10-point list was an item for a $50 Christmas bonus. Negotiations were delayed in start- ing because of the intervening wage freeze of August 15, 1971, but ultimately five meetings were held in 1971, begin- ning with September 14. At this meeting Union Steward Milot and Union Agent Abruzzi asked for inclusion of a bonus in the contract to avoid, said Milot, the problem of having it taken away again at Christmas 1971. According to Respondent's Vice President Jack Rosenfeld, Respondent took the position (now fortified by the arbitrator's award) that the Christmas bonus was a gift and would not bargain concerning it. Rosenfeld claimed that Union Agent Abruzzi said "forget it"; however, Milot explained that he was ready to argue it all day, but Abruzzi said it would be better to await the outcome of the Board (unfair labor practice) pro- ceedings rather than argue it then and tie up the negotiating meeting all day, and suggested they "forget it for the time being" and continue to press for the bonus before the RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE 573 Board. I accept this explanation of what transpired at that meeting in light of the total facts, including what was said at a subsequent meeting. Milot testified, without contra- diction, that at the negotiating meeting of November 18 or 24 he reiterated to Respondent's Director Frey, in a discus- sion involving Frey, Abruzzi, and Milot, that the employees were continuing their bonus claim in the appeal to the NLRB, and showed Frey correspondence in that regard. Frey replied, said Milot, that he was shocked, that he thought the matter had been settled by the arbitrator's deci- sion. Milot answered, he said, that the employees were con- tending for the 1971 bonus as well, that they regarded it as a continuation of what had been expected in 1970, under past practice and maintenance of standards, and that they were letting the matter go until the Board decided it. Milot conceded that this was not said to the federal mediator in a session with him and all parties present , and that the Union notified the employer on December 17, 1971, of a favorable vote of the employees on a group of items submit- ted for their approval. The vote was taken, however, testi- fied Milot, on the explanation to the employees that it did not preclude going forward with the bonus issue before the Board ; and the Union position is that it has not given up, or given any indication of giving up, on the 1970 or 1971 bonus, that the issue was not concluded in the 1971 negotia- tions, and that it is subject to the outcome of the present trial. F. Conclusions 1. Deference to the arbitration award not justified The argument that I defer to the arbitrator's award rests upon Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080 (1955), and subsequent cases, under which the Board has held that the objective of encouraging the voluntary settlement of labor disputes will be best served by the recognition of arbitrators' awards, where the arbitration proceedings appear to have been fair and regular, all parties have agreed to be bound, and the arbitration decision is not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act. In the cases where def- erence is appropriate, deference is given, and the Board's decisional process and remedies withheld for, not only arbi- tration awards made, but also for pending (Flintkote Co., 149 NLRB 1561 (1964)) or available (Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB No. 150 (August 1971)) grievance and arbitration proceedings capable of fairly resolving the con- tract dispute. However, deference to grievance and arbitration pro- ceedings and awards is not required to be automatic, N.L.R. B. v. Horn & Hardart Company, 439 F.2d 674 (C.A. 2, 1971), and the Board has developed understandable exceptions to the principle of deference, forecast in the very enunciation of Spielberg. Where, as here, the arbitrator has not addressed him- self to the unfair labor practice issue it does not encourage voluntary settlement of disputes, or effectuate policies of the Act, to give binding effect in an unfair labor practice pro- ceeding to the arbitration award . Raytheon Co., 140 NLRB 883 (1963). In the present case, the arbitrator, in adopting the posi- tion that the Christmas payments to the employees could not be anything more than a gift or gratuity of the employer, ignored a long line of Board and court precedent construing the Act otherwise, and precluded himself from examining the facts and deciding the unfair labor practice issue before him. One illustration from among the precedents will suffice to put the shortcomings of the artibrator 's award into per- spective. In N.L.R.B. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co., 199 F.2d 713, (C.A. 2, 1952), the court said, regarding an employer's unilateral action and refusal to bargain concerning Christ- mas payments: It does, of course, merely beg the question to call them "gifts" and to argue, however persuasively, that gifts per se are not a required subject for collective bargain- ing. But if these gifts were so tied to the remuneration which employees received for their work that they were in fact a part of it, they were in reality wages and so within the statute. This was a question of fact and if the Board's finding to that effect was supported by sub- stantial evidence it ends the matter . We think it was. Where, as here, the so-called gifts have been made over a substantial period of time and in amount have been based on the respective wages earned by the recipients, the Board was free to treat them as bonuses not eco- nomically different from other special kinds of remun- eration like pensions , retirement plans or group insurance, to name but a few, which have been held within the scope of the statutory bargaining require- ment. [Citations omitted.] Indeed, in Singer Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 131, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 595 [citations omitted], it was recognized that the payment of a bonus was a subject as to which an em- ployer was bound to bargain collectively upon request. Since the collective bargaining agreement already made did not contain any clause dealing with this sub- ject matter it was one upon which the respondent was bound to bargain when the union requested it to do so. N.L.R.B. v. Jacobs Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 196 F.2d 680. By this standard evolved under the Act, the arbitrator's award was clearly deficient . It provided no findings of fact, or judgment applied to facts , consistent with the interpreta- tion of the Act. Indeed, the award adopted as its standard an interpretation respecting the Christmas bonus inconsist- ent with the interpretations of the Act . Because the arbitrator's award is inadequate to substitute for a decision on the merits of the unfair labor practice charged here, I will deny the motion for deference to the arbitrator's award. 2. Section 8(a)(5) and (1) findings In my view, the evidence has established that over a period of 20 years Respondent has been paying its employ- ees a Christmas bonus in articles of value and cash. Over the last 4 years prior to 1970, the bonus had developed into a cash payment related to the length of service and relative responsibilities of the classes of employees . In relation to the employees of the Allentown school involved in this case, the Christmas bonus was $50 each for instructors who had served for a year, or who were part-time instructors , and for laboratory assistants ; and $200 each for instructors who were classified as, or performed the duties of, assistant di- rector. The employees had come to expect and rely upon the 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bonus payments as part of their compensation, and, in view of the regularity and the pattern evolved, had the right to expect the continuation of the bonus as part of their wages. In the 1970 negotiations for the initial collective-bar- gaining contract of the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school, while the Christmas bonus was not the subject of specific and separate negotiations, it was not- ed to be among the matters for which the Union asked for and received a general catchall clause in the contract. That clause of the contract, entitled "Maintenance of Stand- ards," preserves to the employees all conditions of employ- ment relating to wages, hours, and overtime differentials, at not less than the highest standards in effect at the time of the signing of the contract. The Christmas bonus, as an element of wages, was preserved by the "Maintenance of Standards" clause. It follows, therefore, that Respondent was under a stat- utory duty to bargain about its decision to discontinue, and its discontinuance of, paying the Christmas bonus. When, in December 1970, Respondent unilaterally and without bargaining decided to discontinue and discontinued the payment of the Christmas 1970 bonus to the employees in the two bargaining units of the Allentown school employ- ees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Gravenslund Operating Company, 168 NLRB 513 (1967).3 Respondent has continued the violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain about, and not paying, the Christmas 1971 bonus. In the circumstances, the employees are entitled to an order that Respondent make them whole for the monetary loss suffered as a result of the unlawful withholding of the Christmas bonus for 1970 and 1971. See Gravenslund Oper- ating Co., supra, 168 NLRB 513, 514-515. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By unilaterally, and without bargaining, deciding to discontinue, and discontinuing, the payment of the Christ- mas bonus for 1970 preserved by contract to the two units of employees comprising the instructors and laboratory as- sistants, respectively, of the Allentown school, represented by the Union for purposes of collective bargaining, Respon- dent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent continued the violation by refusing to bargain concerning, and not paying, the Christmas bonus for 1971. 2. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY It will be recommended that Respondent 1. Cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, 2. Make the employees whole for the monetary loss suffered by them, as a result of the unlawful withholding of the Christmas bonus for 1970 and 1971, the amount in each case to be determined as nearly as can be ascertained by the formula described in the Section 8(a)(5) and (1) findings, 3 The violation existed even though the action may not have been taken in bad faith, N L.R B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 737, 747 (1962) with interest at six percent per annum. 3. Post the notices provided for herein. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended: ORDER4 Respondent, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union with respect to a Christmas bonus, or any other term or condition of employment, by unilaterally discontinuing or changing bonus payments, or unilaterally changing any term or condition of employment, of the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school in their appro- priate bargaining units, in derogation of the rights of the Union or any other labor organization which the employees may select as their exclusive bargaining representative. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Pay to each of its instructors and laboratory assist- ants of the Allentown school in the appropriate bargaining units the amounts that were due each for the 1970 and 1971 Christmas bonus, computed in the manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post in its school in Allentown, Pennsylvania, cop- ies of the attached notice marked, "Appendix." Immediate- ly upon receipt of copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania, the Respondent shall cause the copies to be signed by one of its authorized representatives and posted, the posted copies to be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith .6 4In 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, recommendations, and Order herein shall, as provided in Sec- tion 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. 5 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 Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 6 In the event that the recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director of Region 4, in writing, within twenty days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE 575 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government due to the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school in the appropriate bargaining units, with interest at six percent per annum. RADIO TELEVISION TECHNICAL SCHOOL, INC., tea RYDER TECHNICAL INSTITUTE (Employer) The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Lo- cal 773, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union), by unilaterally discontinuing or changing the Christmas bonus, or unilaterally changing any oth- er term or condition of employment, of the instructors and laboratory assistants of the Allentown school in their appropriate bargaining units, in derogation of the rights of the Union. WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct interfering with your rights as employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL pay the 1970 and 1971 Christmas bonus 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 direct- ed to the Board's Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut & Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 215-597-7601.