Ameri-Crete Ready Mix Corp.

AMERI-CRETE READY MIX CORPORATION 509 Ameri-Crete Ready Mix Corporation and Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cas- es 2-'CA-12746 and 2-CA-12746-2 November 21, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On July 27, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Bernard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for Respondent and counsel for the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs and counsel for General Counsel filed a reply to counsel for Respondent's exceptions. 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 exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3 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, Ameri-Crete Ready Mix Corporation, Goshen, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. were so insubstantial as to be considered patently frivolous . In the instant case, we do not find that Respondent's defenses are nteritless on their face In such circumstances , we decline to find Respondent's defenses to have constituted frivolous litigation. We further deny the Union's request to have the Board order Respondent to sign the Hudson Valley Supply Yard Agreement. It is well settled that the Board is "without power to compel a company or a union to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective bargaining agreement." H K Porter Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 397 U.S. 99,102 (1970). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD J. SEFF, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at New York, New York, on May 29 and 30, 1973, based on a charge filed on February 5, 1972, a subsequent charge filed on September 11, 1972, and an amended charge filed on October 10.1 Complaint on the consolidated cases was issued March 6, 1973. The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees as to whether and why they signed union cards ; warned employees from becoming or remaining members of the Union ; threatened to close the plant if they voted for the Union in an upcoming NLRB election ; gave wage increases on August 11; instituted hospitalization benefits and engaged in other activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. It is also alleged that Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5). Respondent denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged but admits allegations of the complaint sufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction under current stand- ards of the Board (inflow of over $50,000 in the past calendar year). The answer further admits that the Union, Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case , including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs submitted by the parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, we note the following inadvertent factual errors which do not affect our agreement with his conclusions herein : (1) the appropriate unit on the July 25, 1972, demand date consisted of eight, not seven , employees; (2) employee Conklin received a per-hour wage increase from $3 to $4 on August 4, 1972, not August 11, 1972; (3) July 25, 1972, was the date of the demand, not the date on which the Union decided to sign up the employees; (4) the meeting among Hughson, Mathes, Finkle , and Newman was in June 1972, not April 1972, and (5) Finkle asked Killian why he signed a union card on July 26, not at the beginning of July. We think it unclear as to exactly when Respondent received the Union's petition but we note Finkle's testimony that he knew that a petition had been filed with the Board when the August 1I wage increases were granted Further we note that the employees who were informed of the increase were so informed only after they had signed authorization cards and after the Union's demand. 2 We note the Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent statement that the August 11 wage increases had been promised the employees for voting against the Union. The record does not reflect that the increases had been promised for this reason . We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, however, that the timing of the wage increases violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3 We deny the Union's request for the extraordinary remedies of reimbursement by Respondent of the Union's organizing costs and legal fees in this case. Where the Board has granted such relief, see, e.g., Tiidee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234, it has found that the respondent's defenses I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Respondent, Ameri-Crete Ready Mix Corporation, has maintained an office and place of business at 63 South Street, in the City of Goshen and State of New York, and a plant at Pellets Island Road, Pellets Island, New York, herein called the plant, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ready mix concrete and related products. Background Donald Finkle is the president of the Respondent and John Newman is vice president, secretary, and treasurer of Respondent. These individuals are admittedly agents of said Respondent. The parties stipulated that the following eight employees were hired on or about the following dates: Paul A. Luft was employed in January; i All events took place in 1972 unless otherwise indicated. 207 NLRB No. 79 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LAB5R RELATIONS BOARD Donald K. Hughson, April 18; Adolph P. Mathes (nickname Sonny) April 19; Joseph A. Romer, May 8; Robert A. DeGroat, June 13; Ernest M. Drake, June 15; Thomas Killian, June 16; Robert T. Conklin, June 22. The appropriate unit includes all employees employed by Ameri-Crete at its facility located on Pellets Island Road, in Pellets Island, New York, including truckdrivers and plant laborers; excluding office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. This description of the unit is the same as that to which the parties agreed upon which was approved by the Regional Director in an agreement for consent election dated August 15. The petition in the case was filed by the Union in Case 2-RC-15931 on August 4.2 Timely objections were filed by the Union. On January 5, 1973, a hearing was held by a Regional Hearing Officer who issued a report on objections recommending that the election be set aside which recommendation was adopted by the-Regional Director on February 6, 1973. H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts On April 20 and again on July 25 the Union requested recognition and bargaining. Respondent refused to bargain with the Union at these times. On varying dates from July 19 to July 25, five out of the then seven employees in the appropriate unit signed union cards. The record contains five union authorization cards designating the Union as the collective-bargaining agent for the employees. Killian, Mathes, and Hughson identi- fied their signatures on the cards as having been executed on July 19, 1972; Luft identified his signature as having been signed on July 21; Drake identified his signature as having been signed on July 24. Drake, Conklin, and Romer received wage increases from $4 to $4.70 an hour on August 11; Luft received an increase of $1.00 (from $3 to $4) effective August 11. He had previously received a wage increase on July 12, 1973, from $2.50 to $3 per hour. Conklin received a $1-per- hour increase from $3 to $4 on August 11. B. Meetings with the Union 1. Union's version Union Business Agent Elmore Schueler said he heard in the industry that Finkle intended to start his own business. Up to this time Finkle was the manager of Delaware Sand and Gravel Company. Upon receipt of this news about the end of March 1972 he phoned Finkle, and a meeting took place among Schueler, Finkle, and another Teamsters business agent named Ray Ebert. According to Schueler, Finkle asked if he could have the old rates then prevailing in the industry and not any new higher rates which the Union was then negotiating on an industrywide basis. Finkle said, starting out new in the business it would help him to have the old wage rates. The Union representatives said , they would have to talk over any changes in the contract with their boss. They asked Finkle to enter into a contract. Finkle said he did not know when he would have his trucks but that eventually he knew he would be union. He needed time to get things rolling. About April 20, Schueler and Mike Marco, another Teamsters business agent, went out to the plant on Pellets Island. Present at this meeting were Finkle, John Newman, Union Representative Marco, and two of Respondent's employees, Mathes and Hughson. Concerning suggestions about signing a contract, Finkle said he needed more time, new trucks were slow in coming, he had other problems and he asked if he could have 90 days grace. Schueler said he would try to delay further meetings for a 60-day period to which Finkle agreed. Finkle did not ask the Union if it represented his employees at this time. At the end of 60 days, about June 20, Schueler tried unsuccessfully a number of times to arrange another meeting with Respon- dent. About July 25 the Union decided to sign up the employees to demonstrate to Finkle that it represented a majority of his employees. Hughson, Mathes, and Killian signed cards in Schueler's presence in the union hall, Crestview, Newburg, New York. Later Luft and Drake also signed union cards. Marco and Schueler saw Finkle at Pellets Island, told him they represented a majority of his men and he said, "I know it " "We asked him to sign a contract but he said he still couldn't sign because there were many costs he had not yet figured." In the face of Respondent's refusal to sign a contract, the Union filed a petition with the NLRB on August 4, 1972. The Union had no further meetings with Respondent after July 25. On cross-examination Schueler testified that at his first meeting about February or March, with Finkle, Respon- dent wanted to defer the operation of welfare and pension matters for a year. Schueler said he would have to discuss this request with his boss. 2. Company's version of meetings with Union It appears that Schueler made the initial contact with Finkle Finkle said he came to the first meeting with the union representative at the end of March with his hat in hand, explained that he and his partner, Newman, were going to acquire five ready-mix trucks, that he had no intention of going union and would not be able to handle union work of any size. The new company was basically interested in small home buildmg construction. The union representative, Ebert, did most of the talking. Finkle admitted that he discussed with the Union the hiring of Hughson and Mathes who had been working at the Delaware Sand and Gravel Company where Finkle had been the manager. Also Schueler asked him to discuss the negotiation of a contract. Finkle testified it was not feasible to discuss a contract at that time. In April, at a second meeting with Ebert, Schueler, Marco, and New- man, which took place at the plant, the question of a 2 The election took place on August 25. At that time there were seven against the Union. There were no challenged ballots eligible voters; three votes were cast for the Petitioner and four voted AMERI-CRETE READY MIX CORPORATION 511 contract came up again. Finkle said "No" the Company, did not even have a truck in the yard and in fact Respondent had not yet started in business. At this juncture Hughson and Mathes had been hired by the Respondent and were working around the plant helping to start it up. When these two men were hired they were told the Company had no intention in the forseeable future of being able to afford to go union. Finkle told the men there was the possibility of working out setting up a hospitaliza- tion and pension plan if things worked out. The Company attempted to recruit a working force by putting an ad in the newspaper asking for experienced ready-mix drivers and including a statement that the Respondent would have a hospitalization plan. 3. Section 8(a)(1), Respondent's comments to employees about the Union Hughson testified that Finkle, Newman, and Mathes had a meeting in the office about April 20 at the request of Finkle. Respondent said it was definitely not going union. The Company's accountant had told Finkle that ""there was no way to go union." Finkle told us "we were good drivers, we can give you more money, you can have a pension and welfare plan and you can take a withdrawal card from the Union. We started to walk out and Finkle said we can't build our Company around you if you guys want to stay with the Union." Subsequently Hughson said he could not afford to work for a nonunion company. Finkle said "... if we ever go union I would like to have you come back to work for me." Killian, who began to work for the Company on June 16, signed a union card on July 19 in front of the union hall. He identified his signature on the card which is in evidence. When he was hired by the Company on June 16 he was interviewed by Vice President John Newman. Killian testified: That ... when Newman and I spoke about my employment that they were not union and they had no intentions of becoming union and if I had any intentions they wouldn't be able to use me at that point. I said I didn't. Well, he said that in approximately two weeks they would have hospitalization and a pension plan ... as soon as they got their `problem' cleared up. (The "problem" referred to related' to the Union.) Killian started at $3 an hour and was told that as soon as he got his driving license to operate a tractor trailer he would be raised to $4. He received his license which was stamped July 14. Killian had been performing yard work, filling hoppers with sand and gravel, and doing general repairs on trucks. He spoke to Newman about driving a truck but did not receive an answer. Respondent had some conversation with Killian about sending him to a firm named Keon, a large concrete company located in Haverstraw, New York, where their mechanics would train him on trucks. He was never sent to Keon and did not receive $4. All these conversations ceased as of the time Newman found out Killian had signed a union card. On the day before July 4 Newman said (after the holiday) "Don't forget to be here for the vote." He said "You know what I mean." Killian explained that the employees knew there was going to be a meeting among the men to decide if they wanted a union. Newman added, "Don't forget which way you will vote." On a number of occasions Killian was told by Newman and Finkle that if the men went union "they would have to sell the trucks and close the plant because they couldn't afford it." These comments by Respondent were made to Killian during 2 or 3 weeks in July. Later Killian had a conversation with Luft about unions during which he explained that if Luft signed a union card the "employer couldn't fire you because you wanted to join the union. It was more or less a helping aid so you could keep your job." Hughson gave Luft a card which he signed and handed back to Hughson. About July 26 a conversation took place among Newman, Luft, Killian, and Finkle. Meanwhile Newman had found out that Killian and Luft had signed cards. Newman was very upset and aggravated . He turned to Finkle and said "You know what these bastards did to us, they signed with 445." Newman was especially exercised that his nephew, Luft, signed a card because over the years, he had been helpful to Luft, treated him like a son and showed him many kindnesses. Finkle said to both Luft arid , Killian, "Beauti- ful. You just put us out of business. Why did you sign with 445." Killian explained that he had been promised $1 increase and had never received it and that was why he had signed with the Union. Finkle admitted that together with Newman they called Mathes and Hughson to the office in the middle of June 1972 and told the employees: ... we had talked to our accountant . With, the figures that we got back, he advised us that to pay the rate of pay that we were paying would just be about it as far as establishing any type of profit in business. That he advised us at the present time, if possible, to stay out of the union because of the higher rate that might be involved. Hughson explained that he would have to see Schueler and tell him that he did not like the idea of working for a nonunion operation. Finkle said "We had talked to the men numerous times as far as hospitalization . We also talked about pensions. We signed up with Blue Cross and Blue Shield in the beginning of October 1972." Talks were held with insurance men. On one occasion practically all the men were present at such a meeting. About the beginning of July, Finkle admitted he asked Killian why he signed a card. Killian said he couldn't raise a wife and child on $3 an hour. Finkle replied, "You are not tied down on this job."" Finkle asked Drake why he signed a union card. He said he wanted more money. Finkle asked why Paul Luft signed a union card. Newman's uncle had told Finkle Luft had signed a card. Finkle asked why Luft' didn't talk to his uncle first. Luft answered I made up my own mind. Finkle then said `°... this could easily put us out of business if the union gets involved here. We had everything -at stake, we had our homes, our children everything at stake in this business. We borrowed money and put our houses up on 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the line-we spent 18 years in this business, more or less started on a shoe string not even hardly getting started we have the union ... . Further, during the testimony of Luft, he said he had a conversation during the week of August 7 with Newman who told him that the employees would probably be covered by hospitalization. The record shows that Luft was asked if Newman attached any conditions to the employ- ees coverage by a hospital plan. Newman replied, "If the Union didn't win the election." Early in his testimony Finkle said that at his first meeting with the Union in March he claimed to have told the union representatives that he knew he would eventually go union. This statement, if made, was made for the purpose of buying time and was negated by the future words and actions of both Newman and Finkle. This conclusion is borne out by conversations Respondent held with its employees: that the Company could not afford to go union; that it had no intention in the forseeable future of operating under a union contract; Finkle told Luft ".. . this could easily put us out of business if the union gets involved here ...."; the Company's accountant notified Finkle that the Company could not operate its business at a profit if it had to pay union rates; Newman told Luft that the employees would probably be covered by a hospitaliza- tion plan ". . . if the Union didn't win the election." Finkle admitted that both he and Newman talked to all'his men on numerous occasions and told them that Respon- dent would institute both a hospital and pension plan in the future if it did not have to deal with the Union. Employees Drake, Luft, and Killian were each interrogated as to why they had signed union cards. Newman, upon finding out that Killian and Luft had signed union cards expressed himself crudely concerning the Company's attitude about the Union by telling Finkle on July 26, "You know what these bastards did to us, they signed with Local 445." Further exemplifying Respondent's reaction to the signing of union cards by both Luft and Killian, Finkle told both employees, "Beautiful. You just put us out of business. Why did you sign with 445?" On about April 20 Finkle told Hughson and Mathes, who he called to his office, that the Company was not going union. Further he said, ". . . we were good drivers, we can give you more money, you can have a pension and welfare plan and can take a withdrawal card from the Union." Finkle then concluded his remarks by saying, "... we can't build our Company around you if you guys stay with the Union." The manifestation of Respondent's determination not to do business with the Union was clearly evidenced out of the mouths of both Finkle and Newman and appears in the testimony of Hughson, Luft, Killian, and Drake. I credit the mutually corroborated testimony of these employees and, in fact, it was also corroborated affirmatively by Finkle at many points in his testimony. Furthermore this evidence stands unrefuted in the record by both Finkle and Newman. The promises of wage increases if the employees voted against the Union in the upcoming NLRB election were implemented by concrete action. The Charging Party filed its petition for representation on August 4. Just I week after the filing of the petition, and 2 weeks before the election was held on August 25, wage raises were granted to four employees on or about August 11. Respondent's frequent threats to close its plant and go out of business if the Union was elected, its numerous promises to establish a hospital and pension plan, the timing of the wage increases, its interrogation of its employees about union membership all present convincing proof of violations of Section 8(a)(1) and I so find. The suspicious timing of the wage increases granted between the date of the filing of the petition and the holding of the election plus the making of promises of benefits if the Union lost the election provided ample justification for setting the election aside. Respondent lamely explained the timing of the wage increases on the basis that it had announced its intention of granting wage increases before its receipt of the Union's petition and it was thus only effectuating a plan previously communicated to the employees. The record shows that promises of benefits, including wage increases, had been made to the employees for many weeks before August 4. About a week after Respondent received the union petition it is suddenly galvanized into action and granted long deferred wage increases shortly before the election was scheduled to take place. The inference is inescapable that the granting of the increases was unlawfully designed to influence the employ- ees to vote against the Union. On approximately four occasions between March and July Finkle met with representatives of Local 445. At no time during these meetings did the Respondent recognize the Union. No discussions concerning substantive matters like wages, hours, or working conditions ever took place. It is clear from the record that the Company repeatedly sought to buy time which it used to undermine the Union by committing unfair labor practices. Feeling that Respon- dent was stalling, the Union, on July 25, presented signed union cards from five of the seven employees in the appropriate bargaining unit and demanded that the Company commence negotiations looking to the execution of a contract. The Company refused to bargain confining itself to making explanations that it was not sufficiently advanced in its business activities to begin bargaining. Thereafter, as set forth, supra, an election took place on August 25 which was lost by the Union by a four to three vote. The five cards signed by the employees contained the following language: I, the undersigned . . . hereby authorize the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 445, to repre- sent me and in my behalf, for the purposes of collective bargaining to negotiate and conclude all agreements in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment in accordance with the provisions of the National Labor Relations Board. There is no question but that at the time the Union made its July 25 demand it represented a majority of_ the employees in an appropriate unit and the cards contain the AMERI-CRETE READY MIX CORPORATION 513 unequivocal designation of the Union as the bargaining agent for the signers. In the Board's interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in the Gisset Packing Company case3 three specific but closely related questions are presented in such a situation: 1. What action was threatened? 2. Was the threat, under all the circumstances, likely to be seriously regarded? 3. How widely was the threat disseminated among the -employee group? 1. The threat of plant closing has long been recognized as a uniquely destructive tool of the. gravest consequence. A direct threat of loss of employment through plant closure is one of the most flagrant means by which an employer can hope to dissuade employees from selecting a bargain- ing representative. Such conduct is especially repugnant to the purposes of the Act because no legitimate justification can exist for threatening to close a plant. Such a threat can have only one purpose, to deprive employees of their right to freely select or reject a bargaining representative. For this reason alone Respondent engaged in proscribed conduct of the most egregious nature. 2. Under the circumstances the threat to close the plant and go out of business was made by both Finkle and Newman Respondent's president and vice president, respectively. There is no question but that it was received by the employees with the utmost seriousness. 3. The dissemination of this threat was directly made to five out of the seven employees working for the Company. To this serious threat must be added the granting to four of these employees of wage increases on the threshold of the NLRB election' and the promise of a hospital and pension plan conditioned on the defeat of the Union. Taken overall the Respondent's behavior makes it apparent that both the "stick and the carrot" were used to bring home to the employees the fact that they would be punished by the loss of their jobs if the plant was forced to be closed and would be financially rewarded if they kept the Union out of the plant. The conduct described supra cannot be remedied by the mere posting of a notice. It is thus clear that no second election could be held under conditions which would be free from the atmosphere created by the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act it is necessary to issue an Order requiring; Respondent to bargain with the Union. I find that Respondent, by the course of conduct it followed in its attempt to undermine the Union, is guilty of violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act .4 4. The violation of Section 8(a)(3) I find that Respondent granted wage increases to four of its employees on August 11. By so doing, without dealing with the Charging Party, it unilaterally changed their 3 395 U.S 575. 4 General Stencils, Inc, 195 NLRB 1109. 5 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 working conditions at a time when the, Union was the majority representative of ,the employees. This action by the Company constitutes a clear violation of Section 8(a)(3) and I so find. It is not the policy of the Board to order a reduction in wages after such an illegal change in working conditions. The remedy provided in such a situation is to include in the Order a cease-and-desist prohibition against such unilateral action in the future. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Ameri-Crete Ready Mix Corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating its employees; by threat- ening to,close its plant if the Union was selected by its employees as its bargaining agent; by offering benefits (a hospital and pension plan) if the employees voted against the Union in a Board-conducted election, and by unilater- ally raising wages when the parties were on the threshold of an election, the Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Sections 8(a)(l)(3) and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby issue the following recommended: 5 ORDER Respondent, Ameri-Crete Ready Mix Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and coercively interrogating its employees as to whether and why they joined the Union. (b) Threatening to close its plant if the Union was selected by its employees as its bargaining agent. (c) Unilaterally offering its employees benefits like a hospital and pension plan or any other benefits in order to wean them away from supporting the Union. (d) Unilaterally raising wages in order to undermine the employees' support and activities on behalf of the Union. {e) Refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit found appropri- ate with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and 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. 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment, and, if an understanding is reached; embody such understanding in,a signed agreement. (f) -In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the labor organization to bargain collectively on behalf of the employees in the appropriate unit. 2. Take the following affirmative action- designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor organi- zation in the following unit: All employees, including truck drivers and plant laborers, employed at its Pellets Island, New York, plant, exclusive of office clerical employees, profession- al employees, guards, watchmen and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Post at its Pellets Island, New York, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be,posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, ' and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are, customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken, to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices other than those found herein. 6 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate them. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant because the employees support Local 445, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and 'Helpers of America to be their, collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT attempt to wean away the support given by the employees to ' the ' above Union by unilaterally promising to grant benefits to them. WE WILL NOT unilaterally grant wage increases to our employees in order to undermine the Union. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-mentioned Union as the exclusive representative of our employees inn the following unit: All employees, including truck drivers and plant laborers, employed at its Pellets Island, New York, plant, exclusive of office clerical employ- ees, professional employees, guards, watchmen and all supervisors as defined in the Act. with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed contract. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Dated By AMERI-CRETE READY MIX CORPORATION (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting-and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone 212-264-0030. We hereby notify our employees that: