Schultz Painting & Decorating Co.

SCHULTZ PAINTING & DECORATING CO. Edward E. Schultz d/b/a Schultz Painting & Decorat- ing Co. and Painters Local Union No. 171, affiliat- ed with International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades. Case 27-CA-3604 March 2, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On November 28, 1972, Administrative Law Judge James S. Jenson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, • the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the Respondent's exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Adminis- trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent Edward E. Schultz d/b/a Schultz Painting & Decorating Co., and its alter ego, Rampart Painting Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 1 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge' s Decision, we note that his In 2 indicates that the Board's Decision in Charles T Reynolds, Sr, d/b/a Charles T Reynolds Box Company appears in Volume 135, whereas the correct citation is 139 NLRB 519 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES S. JENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was heard before me in Colorado Springs, Colorado, on October 3 and 4 , 1972, pursuant to due notice. The complaint, which was issued August 18, 1972, pursuant to a charge filed July 7, 1972, alleges violations of Sections 8(a) (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence , to examine and cross-examine witness- es, to argue orally on the record , and to file briefs. A brief was filed by the General Counsel . Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 111 Prior to June 1, 1972, Edward E. Schultz d/b/a Schultz Painting & Decorating Co., herein called Respondent, was engaged in business as a painting contractor in the Colorado Springs, Colorado, area. Respondent operated said business from his residence which was located at Box 145, Lytle Star Route, Colorado Springs. In 1970, Schultz became a member of the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Colorado Springs Chapter, herein called PDCA, an association of employers engaged in painting and decorating. The PDCA exists, in substantial part, for the purpose of representing its employer-members in collective bargaining, and participating in the negotia- tion, execution, and administration of collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of its employer-members with the Union herein. The employer-members of PDCA, on whose behalf PDCA has bargained with the Union, annually purchase and receive goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are shipped to such employer-members from points located outside the State of Colorado. Accordingly, it is found that at all times material to this proceeding, PDCA and its employer-members, including Respondent, have been employers engaged in a business which affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the assertion of jurisdiction is warranted. Rampart Painting Co., Inc., herein called Rampart, was incorporated under the laws of Colorado on April 14, 1971, for the purpose of executing painting contracts, and, during April 1971, commenced performing work pursuant to a painting subcontract, which work was not yet completed at the time of the hearing in this matter. In view of the finding herein below that Rampart is the alter ego of Respondent, it appears that, for the purposes of this proceeding, it is appropriate to find that Rampart is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. In substance, I find below that Respondent's business has been continued as a corporation instead of a sole proprietorship. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Painters Local Union No. 171, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The General Counsel alleges that Respondent constitutes a part of a multiemployer unit; that the Union is the statutory representative of employees in such unit; that on or about April 15, 1972, PDCA and the Union became parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering employees in such unit; that since on or about June 1, 1972, Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union by failing and refusing to accept and conform with the terms and conditions of said agreement; and that Respon- dent has attempted to evade its obligations under said agreement by continuing its business operations under its 202 NLRB No. 23 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD alter ego, Rampart. Respondent contends, in effect, that since he has terminated all PDCA activity and ceased operating as a painting contractor , he is not a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Contend- ing that his status with Rampart is that of an employee, Respondent denies that he has continued business under the name of Rampart as an alter ego. Thus, the main issues are whether Respondent made a timely withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining and, if not, whether Rampart is the alter ego of Respondent. A. The PDCA and its Representation of Respondent Respondent commenced doing business as a painting contractor in approximately June 1970. The operation was conducted from his residence at Box 145, Lytle Star Route, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Respondent's wife, LaVonda Schultz, and their two children, ages 5 and 3, also occupied the residence which was ownedjointly by Respondent and his wife. Within a few months after commencing business, Respondent became a member of PDCA, and, by virtue of such membership, a party to the multiemployer collective- bargaining agreement then in effect between PDCA and the Union. In December 1970, Respondent was elected secretary-treasurer of PDCA, a position which he, occupied until sometime in June 1972 when he surrendered the records of the association to its president. The first collective-bargaining agreement to which Respondent was party expired May 31, 1972. Sometime in February 1972, Respondent was appointed by the president of PDCA as a member of the committee to negotiate a new collective- bargaining agreement which was to succeed the one due to expire at the end of May. While there is a dispute as to whether Respondent attended one or two negotiating meetings, Respondent admits he attended one meeting which he believed to be the second. Those negotiations culminated in an agreement between PDCA and the Union, which became effective June 1, 1972. Respondent testified that he did not resign from PDCA, but that he did not pay dues to the association for 1972 and has ceased to participate in it. Respondent does not dispute the appropri- ateness of the multiemployer unit, which I find to be appropriate, and admits he was covered by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement between PDCA and the Union which expired May 31, 1972. Respondent has declined to execute the most recent agreement on the ground he terminated all PDCA activity on or about April 15, 1972, and has not engaged in business as a painting contractor since that date. Respondent does not contend that he informed the Union that he was going to cease his painting contracting business, or that he did not intend to be bound by the multiemployer bargaining between PDCA and the Union. Section 8(d) of the Act expressly defines the duty "to bargain collectively" to include "the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party." See also H. J. Heinz Company v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 526. The same requirement applies to a multiemployer agreement reached with a union by an authorized representative of the employer, acting on its behalf. N.L.R.B. v. Sheridan Creations, Inc., 357 F.2d 245, 247 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 385 U.S. 1005; N.L.R.B. v. Jeffries Banknote Company, 281 F.2d 893, 896 (C.A. 9). The circumstances under which an employer may withdraw from a multiemployer unit are clearly enunciated in Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, where the Board stated: Among other things, the timing of an attempted withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit, as Board cases show, is an important lever of control in the sound discretion of the Board to insure stability of such bargaining relationship. We would accordingly refuse to permit the withdrawal of an employer or a union from a duly established multiemployer bargain- ing unit, except upon adequate written notice given prior to the date set by the contract for modification, or to the agreed-upon date to begin the multiemployer negotiations. Where actual bargaining negotiations based upon the existing multiemployer unit had begun, we would not permit, except on mutual consent, an abandonment of the unit upon which each side has committed itself to the other, absent unusual circum- stances. Thus, whether or not Respondent had a duty to bargain with the Union, and is bound by the negotiations between PDCA and the Union, depends on the timeliness of his attempt to withdraw from the multiemployer bargaining unit. I have found Respondent to be a part of the multiem- ployer unit and covered by the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement between PDCA and the Union which expired May 31, 1972. Respondent was the secretary- treasurer of PDCA until he relinquished that job sometime in June 1972, after the new agreement was in effect. He was a member of the PDCA committee to negotiate the new agreement with the Union, and in fact participated in at least one negotiation meeting. The evidence fails to disclose any affirmative attempt by Respondent to either withdraw from PDCA or to repudiate the authority that he had apparently vested in the PDCA, until he relinquished the secretary-treasurer's records after the new agreement was in effect. Even then Respondent did not notify the Union that he was withdrawing from the multiemployer unit, nor is there any indication that the Union either consented to or acquiesced in Respondent's withdrawal. Accordingly, it is clear under settled Board law that Respondent remained a part of the multiemployer unit and bound by the June 1; 1972, agreement in the absence of unusual circumstances. While Respondent does not specifically plead "unusual circumstances," the answer to the complaint denies that Respondent has been engaged as a painting contractor since April 1972 or that he has any affiliation with Rampart other than as an employee of that corporation. The General Counsel, on the other hand, contends that Respondent has not in fact ceased doing business, but has attempted to evade its obligations under the June 1, 1972, agreement by continuing business under its alter ego, Rampart. For reasons set forth hereafter, I find that Respondent's purported "going out of business" is not the "unusual circumstance" contemplated by the Board in the Retail Associates case. B. The Formation of Rampart Sometime in January 1971, Respondent advised Robert SCHULTZ PAINTING & DECORATING CO. 113 Elliott, the Union's business manager and financial secretary, that work was slow, and discussed with him the use of the "improver classification" of painter on the Gates-Brock housing project which was up for bidding.' Mrs. Schultz also knew about the Gates-Brock project, and in February or March informed her husband that she intended to bid on the job and asked him to bid on it also. Respondent informed her that most housing projects were done by union contractors, to which she replied: "I'm going to bid on the job anyway." Mrs. Schultz submitted a bid in her own name which was on the basis of using nonunion labor. While it is not clear whether Respondent actually submitted a separate bid, the evidence discloses he was observed by Elliott in March or April doing work on the Gates-Brock model homes. In the meantime, Mrs. Schultz was awarded the painting contract and proceeded to arrange with Raymond S. Duitch, her attorney, for Rampart's incorporation. On April 14, 1971, the articles of incorporation of Rampart were filed with the secretary of state of Colorado. They recite the corporation's purpose to be "execution of painting contracts." Mrs. Schultz is listed as the registered agent, and the registered office is shown as Lytle Star Route, Box 145, Colorado Springs, Colorado, that address being, as before noted, the Schultz' residence and the principal office and place of business of Respondent. The three incorporators are listed as Mr. and Mrs. Schultz and Mr. Duitch, all three of whom are also listed as the corporation's three directors. Of the five shares of Rampart stock issued, two are held by Mrs. Schultz and three by Mr. Duitch, as trustee for the benefit of the two Schultz children. Thereafter, the contract for the Gates-Brock project was made in Rampart's name. The initial capitalization for Rampart was furnished entirely by Respondent in the form of a loan. No note was given for the loan, nor did the loan draw interest. Whenever Rampart needed additional capital to meet a payroll, Respondent would loan the corporation more money and Mrs. Schultz, who did the bookkeeping and performed other duties for Respondent, wrote a check on Respondent's bank account. Sometime in April 1971, Respondent sold a 1961 Ford van to Rampart for $150 for on-the-job storage use. This amount was added to the amount of Respondent's loan to Rampart. On June 9, 1971, Respondent loaned another $150 to Rampart. Again, no note was given in return. On June 9, 1972, Respondent loaned Rampart another $150 from his business account. Respondent testified that about December 1971, he sold all of his painting equipment to Rampart with the exception of a pickup truck. Mrs. Schultz testified that Rampart purchased the equipment after June 1, 1972. I am convinced, however, and find, that the sale of the equipment occurred prior to June 1, 1972, and probably in December 1971, for the following reason. Charging Party's Exhibit 3, the check register summary for Rampart covering the period from January 1 to April 18, 1972, contains a number of adjustments to reclassify the I The "improver classification" had recently been added to the collective-bargaining agreement by way of an addendum. Apparently, to enter the Union's apprenticeship program, an individual was required to be a high school graduate and to pass a test. The "improver classification" was distribution that Mrs. Schultz had made of the check register. The first of such adjustments discloses the establishment of an account payable to Respondent in the amount of $2,092 "to record purchase from Ed Schultz of equipment and tools on Mar. 1, 1972." Thus, it would appear the transfer of Respondent's painting equipment and tools to Rampart took place several months prior to June 1 as testified to by Mrs. Schultz, and prior to the most recent contract negotiations between PDCA and the Union. On or about January 8, 1972, Respondent resigned as a director of Rampart, and was replaced by his father, Frank B. Schultz, who resides in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is not active in the corporation. Respondent testified that he resigned as a director because he was operating on a union basis and Rampart was operating on a nonunion basis, and he felt there was a conflict of interests. It is clear, therefore, that the decision that Rampart would be nonunion was made prior to its incorporation,'or, if after, at a time when Respondent was in fact one of the directors. C. Relationship Between Respondent and Rampart The record discloses that Rampart obtained three jobs as a painting contractor: the Gates-Brock project, which was commenced in the spring of 1971; the Harloff Building in August 1971; and a residence on North Tejon Street in Colorado Springs in September 1972. The date the Gates- Brock job commenced is not clear. Elliott testified that he observed Respondent working on the model houses in March or April 1971, and that he stated to Respondent at that time, "it looks like you got the show houses," and that Respondent replied affirmatively. Elliott testified, without contradiction, that sometime later Respondent called him and advised: "I lost the Gates-Brock project . . . . A nonunion outfit got it. . . . Rampart Painting, or Ram- page." Elliott replied that he had never heard of Rampart before, and Respondent replied, "Neither have I." Both Respondent and Mrs. Schultz affirmed the fact that prior to June 1972, Respondent performed some work on the Gates-Brock project as a subcontractor to Rampart, and that there was no written agreement. In August 1971, Rampart successfully bid a repainting job on the Harloff Building. At the time the job was to commence, Rampart's painting crew was busy on the Gates-Brock job. Respondent testified that his wife asked him if he wanted to do the job at a certain price, to which he agreed. Mrs. Schultz testified that her husband asked if he could do the job; that she asked him to give her a price, which he did, and which she accepted. Regardless of which version is true, the fact remains that Rampart subcontract- ed the repainting of the Harloff Building to Respondent without obtaining a competitive bid. Moreover, the evidence discloses that Respondent was the only firm Rampart subcontracted any business to. In October 1971, Respondent had a contract to paint the new gatehouses at Fort Carson. As Elliott drove by one of the gatehouses, he noticed two men painting the interior created to help those individuals with some painting experience, who could not otherwise qualify for entry into the apprenticeship program, obtain journeyman status after 2 years' training. 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD whom he did not recognize. Upon inquiring, the men informed him they were employees of Rampart and did not belong to a union. Later that day, Elliott talked to Respondent regarding the use of nonunion men on the job and was informed by Respondent that he had "subbed" thejob out to Rampart. Thereafter, Elliott filed a grievance or complaint against Respondent pursuant to the collec- tive-bargaining agreement, alleging that Respondent had sublet the Fort Carson gatehouse job to Rampart and that Respondent was "operating as a union and nonunion contractor, with Mrs. Schultz as owner of the nonunion company as a subterfuge to avoid compliance with" the Union's contract. The PDCA filed a related grievance against Respondent, and, accordingly, a joint committee composed of PDCA and union representatives was convened to consider the grievances . As a result of the joint committee's conclusion that Respondent was operat- ing Rampart as a "backdoor" operation, Respondent advised the committee that "he would try his best to absorb Rampart into Schultz Painting and Decorating." The committee granted Respondent 30 days, and later an additional 90 days, within which to do so. Instead, according to Respondent's testimony, in December 1971, he sold all of his equipment to Rampart, and, on January 8, 1972, resigned from the Rampart board of directors. Although the record does not set forth the jobs which Respondent may have had from October 1971 on, Respondent testified that when he ceased operations at the end of May 1972, he was in the completion stage of a job painting the Evergreen Funeral Home. As Rampart owed him money, he let Rampart finish the job. The amount of the work done by Rampart, approximately $500, was applied to Rampart's debt to Respondent. -Commencing on June 1, 1972, Mr. Schultz became Rampart's foreman in charge of the painting crew at a salary of $250 per week. The foreman preceding Mr. Schultz was paid $200 per week. Rampart's only otherjob has consisted of the painting of a residence in Colorado Springs in September 1972, shortly before the hearing in this matter Although Respondent admitted that Rampart was organized for the purpose of providing a tax shelter and building an inheritance for his minor children, at the hearing he contended that he had lost interest in Rampart and that his only interest now is in drawing his salary. D. Concluding Findings From its inception, Rampart was operated from Respon- dent's business location which was also the Schultz' residence. There was a single phone for both entities. For a number of months, the phone bills were paid by Respon- dent. Later, phone bills were debited to the loan payable by Rampart to Respondent. The same is true of the house, payments, payments on a truck, and utility bills. Neither Rampart nor Respondent reimbursed the other for a portion of such payments . Both entities were engaged in the same type work, and the management remained substantially the same. While Mrs. Schultz testified that she does the estimating on all Rampart jobs, it is clear that prior to Rampart's inception she helped figure the estimates on Respondent's jobs. She also performed the bookkeeping functions for both entities until sometime in the fall of 1971 when they were turned over to an accounting firm. Mrs. Schultz ordered supplies for Respon- dent and delivered materials to Respondent 's jobs. She performs the same functions for Rampart . Mrs. Schultz has at all times had authority to sign checks , not only for Rampart, but also for Respondent. When additional money was needed to meet a Rampart payroll, Mrs. Schultz wrote a check on Respondent's bank account. It is clear from the evidence that, except for the estimating of jobs which his wife now does, Mr. Schultz' duties with Rampart are the same as when he operated under Respondent's name . In both instances he has worked as leadman, assigned work to the crew, ordered supplies, and delivered materials. The evidence further reveals that Respondent was authorized to sign for Rampart's supplies prior to June 1, 1972, the date he went on Rampart's payroll . The most significant difference in Mr . Schultz' status as the leadman for Rampart and in conducting business as Respondent , is his method of remuneration. Under the old operation he received the profits. Under Rampart he receives $250 per week, and the corporation, which is under his wife's control, receives the profits. It is the position of Respondent that Rampart should be treated as a separate and distinct entity without any responsibility to recognize or bargain with the Union. Respondent testified that Rampart was incorporated for the purpose of providing a tax shelter and building an inheritance for the Schultz' children . Its purpose, as stated in the articles of incorporation , was the execution of painting contracts . Thus, it was created for the purpose for engaging in the same business as Respondent, albeit in a different legal form. As hereinbefore stated , the Schultzes, together with their attorney, were the incorporators; initially, Mr. and Mrs . Schultz comprised two of the corporation's three directors ; and not until January 1972, approximately a month after Respondent sold all of his equipment to Rampart, did Mr . Schultz resign as a director. Even then he was replaced by his father who lives in another State and is not active in corporate affairs. Respondent provided the original capitalization for Ram- part and continued to loan money to the corporation as needed. No notes were given in return for the loans, nor was any interest charged . Of further significance is the fact that Respondent was able to obtain work from Rampart on the Gates-Brock job in order "to get the Union off my [Respondent's] back." Mrs. Schultz did not attempt to hide her dislike for the Union and testified that she had made the decision that Rampart would be a nonunion contrac- tor. While the Schultzes would have me believe that they did not discuss the creation of Rampart and the ultimate discontinuance of Mr. Schultz' business, in the light of all the circumstances, I consider it highly improbable that the entire course of action was not as they had planned. It is my belief that the record supports the inference that the decision that Rampart was to operate as a nonunion contractor was made prior to the time Mrs. Schultz submitted the bid on the Gates-Brock project, and that the creation of the corporation was seized upon as a means of avoiding Respondent's obligations under the contract with the Union. It should be remembered that the parties SCHULTZ PAINTING & DECORATING CO. 115 involved are not strangers, dealing at arm's length. The entire matter has involved transactions between a husband and wife occupying the same household. While one of the factors the Board often considers in determining successors or alter ego relationships is the identity of the rank-and-file employees of the two entities involved, the unfair labor practice alleged in this case, which I find to have been sustained, caused the lack of identity. Therefore, the lack of identity of employees does not affect my finding of an alter ego relationship between Respondent and Rampart . Rampart was formed by the persons in control of Respondent , its capital was furnished by Respondent, it has acquired all of Respondent's equipment, and both Mr. and Mrs. Schultz perform substantially the same functions for Rampart as they did while operating under Respondent's name. The foregoing factors convince me, and I find, that Rampart is "merely a disguised continuance of the old employer", Edward E. Schultz d/b/a Schultz Painting & Decorating Co., and that it was created in an attempt to evade and avoid contractual and statutory bargaining rights.2 As I have previously found that Respondent did not make a timely withdrawal from multiemployer bar- gaining, it follows that Respondent and its alter ego, Rampart, are bound by the terms of the April 15, 1972, agreement between PDCA and the Union, and that refusal to accept and conform with the terms of said collective- bargaining agreement constitutes a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act, and interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Rampart, and PDCA, and each of them, are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Rampart is the alter ego of Respondent. 3. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 4. All journeymen and apprentice painters employed by employer-members of PDCA, including employees of Respondent and its alter ego, Rampart, but excluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. At all times since January 1, 1969, the Union has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 6. By refusing on and after June 1, 1972, to acknowl- edge that it was bound by the terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated between the Union and PDCA, Respondent and its alter ego, Rampart, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 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: 3 The activities of Respondent and Rampart as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operation of Respondent, Rampart, and PDCA described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(J) and (5) of the Act and that Rampart is its alter ego, I shall recommend that Respondent and its alter ego, Rampart, cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that Respondent and its alter ego, Rampart, bargain collectively with the Union by acknowledging that it is bound by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the PDCA which was effective on and after June 1, 1972. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and 2 See Charles T. Reynolds Box Company, 135 NLRB 519, enfd. 324 F.2d 833 (C.A. 6); Herman Brothers Pet Supply, Inc., 138 NLRB 1087, enfd. 325 F.2d 68 (C.A. 6); Scott Manufacturing Company, 133 NLRB 1012, enfd. 302 F.2d 280 (C.A. I). 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the ORDER Edward E. Schultz d/b/a Schultz Painting & Decorating Co., and its alter ego, Rampart Painting Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of their employees in the appropri- ate unit described above , with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (b) Refusing to acknowledge that they are bound by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement executed by the Union and PDCA on or about April 15, 1972, which agreement was effective on and after June 1, 1972. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Bargain collectively with the Union by acknowledg- ing that they are bound by the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement executed by the Union and PDCA on or about April 15, 1972, which agreement was effective on and after June 1, 1972. Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Post at their usual places of business, including the Ford van and any other vehicles or buildings used as "on the job storage" facilities, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 27, shall, after being signed by Respondent and Rampart, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent and Rampart have taken to comply therewith. 4 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." multiemployer unit, and we acknowledge that we are bound by the terms of . the collective-bargaining agreement executed by that Union and the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Colorado Springs Chapter, effective on and after June 1, 1972. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the rights granted our employees by the National Labor Relations Act to organize or bargain collectively. Dated By APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Painters Local Union No. 171, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, as the exclusive representative of our employees as part of a Dated By This is anyone. EDWARD E. SCHULTZ D/B/A SCHULTZ PAINTING & DECORATING CO. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) RAMPART PAINTING CO., INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) an official notice and must not be defaced by 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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, U. S. Custom House, Room 260, 721 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, Telephone 303-837-3551.