R. L. Sweet Lumber Co.

R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 529 R. L. Sweet Lumber Company and Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity,. AFL-CIO and Teamsters Local 541, Party to the Contract. Case 17-CA-5292 November 23, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On May 18, 1973, Administrative Law Judge John F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the general Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief to which the Respondent filed an answering 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 record2 and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings and conclusions of the Administrative 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, R. L. Sweet Lumber Company, Kansas City, Kansas, and Standard Homes Company, Olathe, Kansas, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. 1 As the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied. 2 The Respondent's posthearmg motion to complete the record is hereby denied as lacking in merit. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN F. CoRBLEY, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing was held in this case on March 6, 7, and 8, 1973, at Kansas City, Kansas, pursuant to a charge filed on August 18, 1972, a complaint and notice of hearing dated October 20, 1972, and an amended complaint and notice of hearing dated December 26, 1972, both issued by the Regional Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board and which were likewise duly served. The charge was filed by Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Carpenters. The complaint alleges primarily that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally discontinuing certain unit work at its Roe Boulevard Kansas City, Kansas, plant and transferring that work and certain employees from the latter location to Standard Homes Company, alleged to be Respondent's alter ego, without prior consultation with the Carpenters which was and is the representative of the unit from which the work and employees were allegedly transferred. The complaint further alleges that Respondent and its claimed alter ego, Standard Homes Company, have further violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to abide by the terms of Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters covering the Roe Boulevard unit and by other acts described in the complaint. The complaint also alleges that Respondent acting by and through Standard Homes Company has violated Section 8(aXl), (2), and (3) of the Act by recognizing Teamsters Local 541 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Teamsters) as the exclusive representative of a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Standard Homes plant in Olathe, Kansas, pursuant to a collective- bargaining agreement with the Teamsters at a time when the Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees at the instant Standard Homes Company plant.' Finally the complaint alleges that Respondent by other acts described in the complaint has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. In its answer, amended at the hearing, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Teamsters also filed an answer to the complaint, amended at the hearing, in which it denied certain allegations of the complaint. For reasons which will appear hereinafter, I find and conclude that Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single employer within the meaning of the Act and that the homes prefabrication and assembly employees were removed from the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard and, although assigned to the Olathe plant of Standard Homes Company, continued to be a part of Carpenters Roe Boulevard unit. I further find and conclude that by unilaterally applying and enforcing the Teamsters contract at Olathe to the employees who were moved out of the Carpenters Roe Boulevard unit to work at Standard Homes Company at Olathe and by enforcing the union- security provisions of that Teamsters contract to these employees, Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company has violated, and is violating, Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the'Act. At the hearing, all parties including the Teamsters (the Party to the Contract) and Standard Homes Company (the Intervenor) were represented by counsel. All parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to file briefs. The General Counsel, Respondent, and Standard Homes Company presented oral argument through their respective counsel at the close of the hearing; the other parties waived 1 Both Standard Homes Company and Teamsters participated in the hearing. 207 NLRB No. 89 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this right. Briefs have subsequently been filed-by Respon- dent, Teamsters Local 541, Standard Homes Company, and, on April 26, 1973, by the General Counsel and have been duly considered., Upon the entire record2 in the case including the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Missouri corporation engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of lumber and related products with its principal office and lumberyard located at 4400 Roe Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas, one of the two locations primarily involved in this proceeding. Respondent annually sells lumber and related products valued in excess of $50,000 to customers located outside of the State of Kansas and annually has a gross volume of business in excess of $500,000. Upon the foregoing facts, which are alleged in the complaint and are admitted in Respondent's answer and Teamsters' answer, I find, as also admitted in these answers, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, Respondent admitted at the hearing, and Teamsters also admitted in its answer, that Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and that Teamsters Local 541 is also ,a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Sequence of Events Respondent was founded in 1936 , and, although a Missouri corporation, is also qualified to do business in Kansas. One of its locations, primarily involved in this proceeding, was established on a tract of land over 13 acres in size at 4400 Roe Boulevard in Kansas City, Kansas, and was opened for business in 1952. The founder of the firm, Mr. R. L. Sweet, passed away in 1958 and since that time his widow, Mrs. Louise V. Sweet, has been president of the corporation . Some 95 percent of the stock in Respondent is held in trust for Mrs. Sweet and her two daughters . The trustees are the First National Bank and the husbands of these two daughters. At the Roe Boulevard location, the Respondent became engaged in several aspects of the lumber business including the manufacture and sale of windows, doors, and room dividers and single package prefabricated homes. For a number of years a unit of Respondent's warehouse and yard employees (e.g., lumber handlers, truckdrivers, 2 The record is hereby corrected in the following particulars [omitted from publication]. 3 While some employees, who testified at the hearing, did not recall seeing this bulletin, others testified that they did see the bulletin and it is undisputed that it was prominently rumored among the employees at Roe loaders, forklift operators, stockmen,- etc.) at Roe Boule- vard have been represented by Teamsters Local 541, the so-called Party to the Contract, which participated in these proceedings. Certain of Respondent's inside employees at Roe Boulevard, who were engaged in the manufacturing process (e.g., millmen and prefabricated homes assemblers) had been represented for some time by the Charging Party, Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, in a separate unit. The prefabricated homes manufacturing activity was known as the Standard Homes Division of Respondent. - There came a time in 1971 when Respondent's volume of business at Roe Boulevard had developed to the point where Respondent had outgrown its facilities at that location. The crowding at that facility, was particularly noticeable in the Standard Homes production activity which was required to operate without an assembly line but utilizing several separated work locations at the Roe Boulevard site. Thus, window units were manufactured in one area and wall panels in another. Rafter cutting took place in yet a different area. Rafters and joints were stored in another space which had a dirt floor. The assembly of the completed wall panels for delivery was in a different location from that at which the panels were manufactured. In view of this manifestly inefficient method of pro- duction and the generally cramped quarters at Roe Boulevard it was decided at a meeting of Respondent's directors in June 1971 that the , Standard Homes pro- duction operation would be moved to another site. Accord- ingly, land was purchased and a new building was erected some 19 miles away at Olathe, Kansas, in the latter part of 1971. The new building is clear span (no intervening walls) and provides for a continuous flow through production line whereby lumber is brought in at one end, the walls are manufactured and assembled, and are carried out of the other end of the building essentially as a package ready to be sold and delivered. There is also a storage yard and a railroad spur at the Olathe facility. The land and building at Olathe are owned by R. L. Sweet Investment Company and all the stock in that company is held in trust for Mrs. Louise V. Sweet by the First National Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, and Mrs. Sweet's same two sons-in-law, mentioned previously. Sometime in the late summer of 1971 a "Staff Bulletin" from Mrs. Sweet dated August 5, 1971, was placed in the timecard slots of all employees at Roe Boulevard announc- ing the purchase and the construction of the new building at Olathe. This bulletin recited, inter alia, that the new plant would be occupied by "Standard Homes Company, a division of Sweet Lumber."3 For some time prior to 1971 there had been another separate corporation, of which Mrs. Sweet was also president, which was known as Construction Loan Compa- ny. About October 31, 1971, legal action was taken to change the name of the latter corporation to Standard Boulevard in the latter part of 1971 and early 1972 that a move of the Standard Homes operation was imminent Carpenters Business Representa- tive Harding was told in January 1972 about this impending move by Boyce, the Carpenters steward at the Roe Boulevard plant. R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 531 Homes Company (thereby, in effect, separately incorporat- ing the Standard Homes Division of R. L. Sweet Compa- ny). Notwithstanding this incorporation of Standard Homes Company, the prefabricated homes operation continued at the Roe Boulevard plant the same as before. Thus, the prefabricated homes continued to be manufactured and shipped from that location and all production employees continued to be employed by R. L. Sweet Company and were paid with its checks. All these arrangements came to an end, however, in February 19724 when prefabricated homes production was halted at Roe Boulevard .5 Meanwhile, the plant at Olathe was so near to comple- tion that in early January 1972, Frank H. Woodbury, an employee of Respondent, and Charles Roberts, now the assistant plant manager of Standard Homes Company, went to the Olathe site to check on the completion of the plant with the general contractor, R. E. Dunn Construction Company. Also by January 1972 lumber began to arrive at the Olathe plant and four individuals (Streeter, Nicely, Brown, and Kline) were hired at the site to put the lumber in place. In addition to moving lumber, these four individuals built some racks and other facilities to be used in the plant's operation. On January 24, Aubrey Williamson, then a business agent of Teamsters Local 541, went to the Olathe site, spoke to the aforementioned four employees and obtained from them signed authorization cards for that union. Thereafter Teamsters Local 541 sought recognition as the collective-bargaining representative of these employees. On February 4, 1972, Williamson met with Eugene D. Smith, vice president of Standard Homes Company (who had previously been the vice president of Respondent and manager of the old Standard Homes Division), and with Respondent's counsel, Hoffhaus, and presented- the four union authorization' cards. After the signatures on these authorization cards were verified, Smith, and Hoffhaus agreed to discuss a contract. On February 8, 1972, Smith and Hoffhaus came to Local 54l's office and began negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement. Further meetings were held on February 9 and 11, 1972, and a contract was- executed on the latter date effective February 7, 1972, until February 2, 1975, with a provision for subsequent automatic renewal. Pursuant to this agreement Teamsters Local 541 was recognized in a production and maintenance unit at the Olathe facility of Standard Homes Company.6 4 After the separate incorporation of Standard Homes Company but before the prefabricated homes production was discontinued at the Roe Boulevard plant, an arrangement was arrived at whereby Respondent sold its prefabricated homes to Standard Homes Company for a price which included the value of the materials and a fixed labor cost for each unit. Much of the equipment (such as saws, tables, desks, etc) which had been used by the Standard Homes Division were sold at their "book value" by Respondent to Standard Homes Company on November 1, 1971 A separate office was temporarily established for Standard Homes Company office employees at Roe Boulevard and some office employees were paid on Standard Homes Company checks in January and February 1972. None of the latter were, however, shown -to be unit employees. 5 Carpenters, which was the recognized representative of the employees performing the homes prefabrication work at Roe Boulevard as well as the mill employees at_ that location, was not notified by Respondent that the prefabrication work Was, going to be discontinued at Roe Boulevard in This agreement was a separate agreement from the same Union's previously mentioned contract covering the yard employees at Respondent's Roe Boulevard location. The latter unit was covered at the time by a contract with Teamsters Local 541 effective from April 1, 1969, to April 1, 1972, and said Roe Boulevard unit is currently covered by a„contract with the same labor organization effective from April 1, 1972, to March 3-1, 1975. The date when the Olathe plant contract was executed -February 11, 1972-is prior to the 6-month statute of limitations provision set forth in Section 10(b) of the Act. On February 11, 1972, only the four individuals previously named (outside of Woodbury and Roberts) were working at Olathe. The work they still were performing consisted of unloading lumber, moving it with forklifts, and putting up racks.? No production work had as yet begun at the Olathe plant. In about the middle of February 1972 Smith began interviewing employees of Respondent at its Roe Boule- vard plant, and elsewhere to inquire whether they would accept employment at the ,Olathe plant. As will appear, several of these employees had been engaged for a number of years in the building and assembly of wall sections and other operations in the manufacture of the prefabricated housing units for Standard Homes at Roe Boulevard. A number of those interviewed including Coffelt, who was then considering retirement, and Schaffer, Phillip Fisher, and John Papineau accepted the offer of employment and began working at the Olathe plant before the end of February 1972. These four employees were members of Carpenters Local 1635 while working at Respondent's Roe Boulevard location. The first prefabricated home package was produced at the Standard Homes Company Olathe plant on February 29, 1972. In the meantime James Harding, business representative of Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, which, as previously noted, was the recognized representative of the mill and prefabricated homes unit at Respondent's Roe Boulevard location, was told by his steward, Louis Boyce,8 on February 20, 1972, that Coffelt, who had been employed in that unit, was about to begin work at the new Olathe plant. Accordingly, Harding went to the office of Hatcher, Respondent's vice president in charge of production,9 to inquire about (what Harding considered to be) the transfer of Coffelt from Roe Boulevard to the Olathe facility. Hatcher informed Harding that the Olathe facility was not a part of the February 1972. The first discussion of this matter between Respondent and Carpenters occurred, as will appear, on February 20, 1972, when James Harding, the Carpenters business representative, spoke about it with Hatcher, Respondent's vice, president in charge of production, after Harding had been informed by his steward that one of the homes prefabrication employees, Coffelt, was about to leave the Roe Boulevard plant to begin working at the Olathe location. 6 These findings in regard to the organization of the Olathe facility and the bargaining negotiations are based on the credible testimony of Williamson, which was not denied by Smith Hofffhaus did not testify Williamson and Smith credibly so testified. Boyce was the steward of the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard and was also employed by Respondent at that location 9 While Hatcher is not in charge of-production at the Olathe plant, he was in charge of all production of prefabricated homes when that operation was still going on at the Roe Boulevard plant. 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent, but was a separate Delaware corporation. Hence, said Hatcher, he and Harding had nothing to discuss. Harding, however, .insisted that he would process the matter through the grievance procedures of the Carpenters contract covering the Roe Boulevard plant.10 Sometime in February or March of 1972 the office and plant equipment previously used at the Roe Boulevard plant by the Standard Homes Division of Respondent and which had been sold to Standard Homes Company by Respondent on November 1, 1971-were moved to the Olathe plant, where such assets were put to use for the same purposes and essentially in the same manner as their utilization at Roe Boulevard. Also in February and March 1972 other employees" of Respondent left its Roe Boulevard plant and began working for Standard Homes Company in Olathe. These included Dial and Quick who had been members of Carpenters Local 1635 while working in the Carpenters unit at Roe plant. Others were Berry, Donica, Dale Long and Terry Long, Savage, Simpson, Vest, and Webb, who had been members of Teamsters Local 541 while employed by Respondent at its Roe Boulevard plant. On March 17, 1972, Carpenters filed a grievance with Respondent complaining, inter alia, that Respondent had transferred bargaining-unit work from Roe Boulevard to Olathe without consultation with Carpenters; unilaterally imposed a different collective-bargaining agreement with less favorable wages and working conditions upon Carpen- ters unit employees; and bypassed Carpenters in dealing directly with Carpenters unit employees about their working conditions and threatened said employees with termination if they did not transfer to the Olathe plant, all in violation of the Carpenters collective-bargaining agree- ment then in effect at the Roe Boulevard plant. By letter dated March 22, 1972, Respondent denied the grievance on the ground that the work to which the grievance referred was then being performed by a different corporation (i.e., Standard Homes Company) and by employees of that corporation under the aegis of a collective-bargaining agreement with a different union (i.e., Teamsters Local 541). In a letter dated April 19, 1972, Respondent further took the position that the grievance was not arbitrable, essentially for the same reasons Respondent had denied the grievance in its letter of March 22. At about this same time the Carpenters contract covering the Roe Boulevard plant was nearing its termination date and Carpenters gave timely notice at the end of February 1972 that it sought to negotiate a new agreement with Respondent for the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard. In early April and May of 1972,12 Respondent and Carpen- ters negotiated a new agreement covering the Carpenters Roe Boulevard unit. The new agreement was ratified by the unit employees about June 1, 1972, and was made retroactive to May 1, 1972 (the day after the termination of the prior contract). The new agreement is effective from the latter date until April 30, 1974. During the negotiations for this 1972-1974 contract, Respondent's claimed transfer of Roe Boulevard Carpen- ters unit work to the Olathe plant was not discussed by the parties. Nor did the parties advert, in these negotiations, to the terms and conditions of employment of the former Roe Boulevard Carpenters unit employees who were by then working at the Olathe plant. Since the spring of 1972 the prefabricated homes manufacturing operation continues to be carried on at the Olathe plant.13 And all production and maintenance employees at the plant continue to be represented by Teamsters Local 541 under the terms of its contract for that plant. Respondent's cessation of the prefabricated homes operation at Roe Boulevard utilizing Carpenters unit employees at that location and the subsequent reconstitu- tion of that activity at the Olathe plant of Standard Homes Company without notification to, and bargaining with, the Carpenters are the principal bases of the 8(a)(5) allegations of the complaint. The application of the Teamsters Olathe plant contract to the former Roe Boulevard Carpenters unit employees now working at Olathe, as well as the application of that contract and its union security provisions to all production and maintenance employees at the Olathe plant, constitute the substance of the 8(a)(l), (2), and (3) allegations of the complaint as well as other 8(a)(5) allegations of the complaint. B. The Supervisory Status of Smith and Kline The complaint alleges that Eugene D. Smith and Walter Kline, both of Standard Homes Company, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The answers deny these allegations. I find and conclude, however, that both are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Smith is the vice president of Standard Homes Compa- ny. He is in charge of the draftsmen who draw the plans for Standard Homes Company, has the ultimate authority over production at the Olathe facility, and is in charge of sales and marketing. Charles Roberts, assistant plant manager, recommends hiring and firing to Woodbury who reports on such matters to Smith. Smith hired Coffelt, Schaffer, Papineau, and Fisher to work at the Olathe plant or, in any event, arranged for their employment at that location. I find, therefore, that Smith responsibly directs the activities of all employees at Olathe and has authority to hire, fire, and transfer employees, all in a manner requiring the exercise of independent judgment. I conclude therefore that he is, and was at least since the hiring or transfer of Coffelt, Schaffer, Papineau, and Fisher in February 1972, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.14 5 Walter Kline, as previously noted, was one of the individuals originally hired in January 1972 to work at the Olathe plant.15 When Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and 10 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Harding which was not denied by Hatcher. 11 Besides Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and Papineau, who have already been mentioned. 12 According to the credible testimony of Harding, which was not denied by Hatcher. 13 Although utilizing door and windows which are manufactured by Respondent at the Roe Boulevard plant and sold by Respondent to Standard Homes Company. 14 I make these findings on the basis of the credible and undisputed testimony of Smith, Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and Papmeau. 15 Kline also formerly worked at Respondent's Roe Boulevard plant R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 533 Papineau took up their duties at the Olathe plant in February 1972, Kline had become a foreman.16 As a foreman, according to the undisputed testimony of Smith, Kline has the authority to recommend hiring and firing, and, according to the admission of Smith, management has the obligation to "back up" Kline. Further, Smith admitted, Kline has enjoyed the status of nonworking foreman since he, Kline, "first came down to Olathe." I find, therefore, that Kline has been a foreman since at least February 21, 1972 (when Coffelt began working at Olathe), and has had the authority effectively to recom- mend hiring and firing in a manner requiring the exercise of independent judgment. I conclude, accordingly, that he has been, at least since February 21, 1972, a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. C. The Alleged Status of Standard Homes Company as an Alter Ego of Respondent The complaint alleges that Standard Homes Company is an alter ego of Respondent. Respondent and Teamsters 541 deny that Standard Homes Company occupies such status. I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that Standard Homes Company is an alter ego of Respondent and that the two companies are a single employer within the meaning of the Act. 1. Both Respondent and Standard Homes Company have essentially common ownership. Standard Homes Company is almost entirely owned by Respondent, by Mrs. R. L. Sweet (the president of Respondent and also of Standard Homes Company) and by relatives or in-laws of Mrs. Sweet.17 As previously noted, about 95 percent of the outstanding stock in Respondent is held in trust for Mrs. Sweet and her two daughters, Marilyn S. Keene and Athelia S. Clingan. The trustees are Mrs. Sweet's sons-in-law, Melvin H. Clingan, Ralph Kiene, and the First National Bank of Kansas City. 2. Respondent and Standard Homes Company have a number of common officers. Thus, Mrs. Sweet is the president of both companies as well as the treasurer of Respondent. Melvin H. Clingan (her son-in-law) is the secretary of Respondent and is also the secretary and assistant treasurer of Standard Homes Company. George E. Fischer is a vice president (controller) of Respondent and assistant secretary of Standard Homes Company. 3. The directors of Respondent and Standard Homes Company were not shown. However, it is undisputed that the directors of Respondent are elected by the trustees of 95 percent of Respondent's corporate stock. And, as noted, two trustees are sons-in-law of Mrs. Sweet. Since Respon- dent and members of the Sweet family own 98.5 percent of the Standard Homes Company, I conclude that Respon- is I make this finding on the basis of the undisputed testimony of Coffelt Kline did not testify. 17 Thus, there are 10,000 outstanding shares of stock in Standard Homes Company. Of ithese shares Respondent owns 8,950 (89.5 percent). Mrs. Sweet owns 150 shares; her two daughters, Marilyn S. Kiene and Atheha S. Clingan, 150 each; one son-in-law, Melvin H. Clingan, 150; and her four minor Kiene grandchildren, 150 altogether, for a total of 9 percent. Therefore, 98.5 percent of the stock in Standard Homes Company is owned or controlled by Respondent and members of Mrs. Sweet's family. dent and the Sweet family also elect the directors of Standard Homes Company. 4. Mrs. Sweet is actively engaged in overseeing both corporations. She has an office of Roe Boulevard and another at Olathe. She keeps office hours at Roe Boulevard 6 days per week and assists in sales promotion at Olathe every Sunday. During the week, Mrs. Sweet is in contact with Eugene D. Smith, the vice president of Standard Homes Company and its manager, every day-in person or by telephone-and Mrs. Sweet must approve decisions of Smith, particularly major purchases recommended by him. Mrs. Sweet signs all the paychecks 18 for Standard Homes Company employees-19 5. Respondent and Standard Homes have a commonly controlled labor relations policy. As noted, Mrs. Sweet is president of both companies. A "Staff Bulletin" from Mrs. Sweet dated August 24, 1972, was issued to all employees of Respondent and Standard Homes Company announcing that all offices and yards of Respondent and Standard Homes Company including the exhibition houses of Standard Homes Company would be closed for all 3 days of the Labor Day weekend, September 2, 3, and 4, 1972. Hoffhaus, who ably represented Respondent at the hearing, also represented it in denying the Carpenters demand for arbitration in April 1972. Hoffhaus also participated in the discussions and negotiations in early February 1972 between Teamsters 541 and Standard Homes Company which resulted in the recognition of Teamsters by Standard Homes Company and the execu- tion of a contract between, Teamsters and Standard Homes Company which, by its terms, covers a unit of the production and maintenance employees at the Olathe plant.20 Officials of Respondent sent employees to see Smith at Respondent's Roe Boulevard plant to discuss the possibili- ty of their working at the Olathe plant. Thus, Hatcher, Respondent's vice president in charge of production at Roe Boulevard who also negotiated and signed the 1972 Carpenters contract for that location (and admitted handling Respondent's labor relations for a number of years previously), summoned or accompanied employees Schaffer and Fisher to their interviews with Smith. When Schaffer originally turned down the Olathe opportunity due to the low wage offer by Smith, Hatcher told Schaffer he might get another call. Schaffer did get another call from Smith and Schaffer was offered and accepted a higher hourly rate at Olathe than he was first offered. Roe Boulevard Foreman Don Walker sent employee Fisher to his interview with Smith. Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and Papineau all credibly testified, and I find, that Smith told them, when he spoke to them at the Roe Boulevard plant in February 1972, that they would retain their seniority from IS These findings are based on the admissions of Mrs. Sweet. 19 In her testimony Mrs. Sweet also referred to the product of Standard Homes Company as "our home.- 20 Lowe, who capably represented Standard ]Homes Company at the hearing, was not present at these negotiations. I am constrained to observe, in passing, that I was favorably impressed by the high degree of professional competence and courtesy demonstrated by all counsel who appeared at the hearing. 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their employment with Respondent at least insofar as vacations at Standard Homes wereconcerried.21 6. The initial complement at Olathe at the time production began on February 29, 1972, consisted of employees who had just been released from Respondent. Thus, of some 18 production and maintenance employees working at Olathe by the end of February 1972, some 14 had formerly been employed at Roe Boulevard where they had been represented in the carpenters unit by Carpenters or had been represented by Teamsters Local 541, apparent- ly in the latter's unit at the Roe Boulevard plant 22 7. Smith admitted that all supervisors at Olathe had formerly worked at Respondent's Roe Boulevard plant, although he further stated that some of the Olathe leadmen had not been part of supervision at Roe Boulevard. 8. As will appear, Standard Homes Company is producing essentially the same product as was produced when the prefabrication operation was located at Roe Boulevard. 9. There continues to be a certain measure of product integration between the Olathe and Roe Boulevard plants in that the window and door units installed by Standard Homes Company at Olathe are manufactured at Roe Boulevard and sold to Standard Homes Company by Respondent. The window and door-units utilized by the old Standard Homes Division were also manufactured at Roe Boulevard. 10. All purchasing for Standard Homes Company and Respondent is performed by Respondent although Stand- ard Homes Company pays Respondent for this and other accounting services. As previously mentioned, George E. Fischer is Respondent's controller as well as the assistant secretary of Standard Homes Company. 11. A considerable amount of office and factory equipment was sold by Respondent to Standard Homes Company on or about November 1, 1971, at the equip- ment's "book value" which I conclude in numerous instances was substantially less than its actual value. For example, some 7 saws of various descriptions were sold for $1 each, 12 desks were sold at the same unit price as were 7 file cabinets, 6 Friden calculators and 2 Marchant calculators. Eleven typewriters, mostly Royal, were also sold to Standard Homes Company by Respondent for $1 each. This equipment, particularly the shop items (such as saws, tables, etc.) continued to be used by Respondent's employees at Roe Boulevard until February 1972 and is now in use at Olathe. 12. Finally, Standard Homes Company is still held out 21 Kline, whom I have found to be a supervisor, told Papineau about March 1972 that Papmeau could be transferred from Olathe to another plant of Respondent at Lee's Summit in Missouri. 22 At least eight of this number had been represented by Teamsters Local 541 at Roe Boulevard. This figure accords with information given to Teamsters Local 541 representative Williamson by Dale Long, Teamsters steward at Roe Boulevard, that about seven Teamsters members at Roe Boulevard would be laid off as the result of Standard Homes leaving that location to go to Olathe 23 The cutoff date for placement of advertising in the Yellow Pages for 1972 was October 13, 1971. 24 The cutoff date for placement of advertising in the Yellow Pages for 1973 was October 13, 1972 25 E.g., Macke Laundry Service Company of D.C. et at 190 NLRB I; Manitowoc Shipbuilding Inc, et. al, 191 NLRB 786. to the public as a division of Respondent in the local telephone "Yellow Pages" `for 197223 and 1973.24 In newspaper advertising as recently as May 7, 1972, Standard Homes Company was also held out to the public as a subsidiary of Respondent. The Standard Homes advertising brochure for 1972 also recites that Standard Homes is a subsidiary of Respondent. In view of all the foregoing, I find and conclude that Respondent and Standard Homes Company are, and were at all times material hereto, a single employer within the meaning of the Act 25 D. The Appropriate Unit: are the Standard Homes Company Prefabrication Employees at Olathe a Part of the Carpenters Unit at Roe Boulevard or Have They Been Merged into a Plantwide Production and Maintenance Unit at the Olathe Plant? Having concluded that Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single employer within the meaning of the Act, it follows that all employees of the'Olathe plant are employed by the same employing entity as the employees who continue to work at the Roe Boulevard plant. The pertinent question, however, insofar as these proceedings are concerned, now becomes whether the homes prefabrication and assembly employees-who were represented in the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard-re- main a part of that unit (or have become an accretion to it) notwithstanding the fact that such employees are now located at the Olathe plant. I conclude that the instant employees continue to be-or are an accretion to-the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard.26 ' Coffelt, Schaffer, Fisher, and Papineau all credibly testified, and f find, that, since they have begun their employment at Olathe, they have performed the same work, using the same tables, jigs, and tools, as they did when employed 27 at the Roe Boulevard plant 28 This work is also performed for many of the same customers (particularly builders) who used to purchase the prefabri- cated homes when the prefabrication and assembly operation was located at Roe Boulevard. This work also continues to be performed under the supervision of Smith who was in charge of the old Standard Homes Division of Respondent at Roe Boule- vard, albeit Smith did not then directly supervise the production operation. Also, as noted, Mrs. Sweet is president of Standard Homes Company as well as Respondent. 26 1 do not reach or decide the question of whether the yard employees, forklift loaders, etc., at Olathe are an accretion to the Teamsters unit at Roe Boulevard That question was not presented in the complaint nor was it litigated at the hearing 27 Coffelt retired at the end of August 1972 1 also conclude that Dial and Quick, two other former members of Local 1635 who terminated their employment with Respondent in February 1972 and began work for Standard Homes Company in the same month; also performed the same work at both locations. I reach this conclusion based on the fact that each has the same job classification with Standard Homes Company as he did with Respondent (i.e , assembler and rafter cutter, respectively). 28 Smith conceded at the hearing that the work is essentially the same, requiring the same skills. The only difference cited by Smith is that the product must now conform precisely to the drawing , a policy which did not obtain at Roe Boulevard. R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 535 Further, as already found, the former Roe Boulevard employees now employed at Standard Homes were assured that their seniority with Respondent would be-continued at Olathe at least insofar as vacations at Standard Homes are concerned. - While there is some evidence that employees are interchanged in what Smith described as a "fairly stand- ard" manner in the production operation at Olathe (i.e., utilizing yard employees to do some production work and vice versa), Smith gave only one specific example 29 of this and conceded that a majority of the employees are assigned to one particular job at which they are most efficient. In this connection it is also important to note that, in addition to hiring six Carpenters unit prefabrica- tion employees from Roe Boulevard to work in Olathe in February 1972 (Coffelt, Fisher, Schaffer, Papineau, Quick, and Dial), Standard Homes Company also hired Duxbury and Fitzpatrick to work at Olathe in March 1972. These last two employees were former members of Carpenters Local 1635 at Roe Boulevard, but had left Respondent's employ there in 1971 and 1970 respectively.30 They were hired for assembly work at Olathe. Further Coffelt credibly testified, and I find, that he never saw Brown, Streeter and Nicely (i.e., three of the four individuals originally hired at Olathe in January 1972) performing production work.31 I conclude, based on the foregoing, that the prefabrica- tion and' assembly employees' now working at Olathe continue to be-or are an accretion to-the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard. This conclusion also rests on my subsidiary findings, supra, in support of my conclusion that Respondent and Standard Company are a single employer within the meaning of the Act including, inter alia, the integration of operations whereby Respondent's mill employees continue to manufacture the window and door units' for the prefabricated homes assembled at Olathe just as such mill employees manufactured the same compo- nents when the prefabrication and assembly operation was carried out at Roe Boulevard. I am not persuaded in all the foregoing circumstances that there has been sufficient interchange of the prod- uction, maintenance, and yard employees at Olathe to disestablish the integrity of the Standard Homes Company prefabrication and assembly employees with the Carpen- ters unit at Roe' Boulevard. For under Board law, the perimeters of an otherwise appropriate unit-here one founded on bargaining history 32 and a Board certification 29 Williamson, the then Teamsters representative. also saw one or two of the four employees, whom he originally signed up, doing production work after production began. 30 Duxbury had been an apprentice panel assembler and Fitzpatrick an auto nailer operator at Roe Boulevard. 31 This testimony is not necessarily inconsistent with that of Williamson, supra who only saw "one or two" of these four employees working on the production line. 32 Where the same employees did essentially the same work using the same equipment when members of the Roe Boulevard Carpenters unit. 33 In fact a stipulation entered into by the parties, styled G.C. Exh. 8, sets forth separate job assignments for the Olathe plant employees which clearly place such employees in homes assembly (Carpenters unit) work (e.g., "Ray L. Dial-assembler of panels") or non-Carpenters unit warehouse work (e.g, "David N. Nicely-lift truck operator"). 34 See Big Y Supermarkets, 161 NLRB 1263, 1267-1268; cf. American Cyanamid Company; 131 NLRB 909, 910. 35 While some of the latter employees subsequently joined Teamsters, I (according to the language of the 1970-1972 contract between Carpenters and Respondent)-will not be washed away merely by general testimony that interchange has occurred into and out of such a unit. What is required to defeat the appropriateness of such a unit on this basis is a demonstration that'the amount of such interchange has been significant and such a showing would normally require evidence of the regularity and identity of individual employees who have participated in such interchange 33 I do not find such a demonstration present in this record.M I further find, based upon the prior and current collective-bargaining agreement between Carpenters and Respondent, and the apparent Board certification, both covering the Boulevard unit, that Carpenters was, at all times relevant hereto, and remains the majority representa- tive of that unit including the homes prefabrication and assembly employees now working at,the Standard Homes Company plant in Olathe.35 E. The Alleged 8(a)(2) Violations The complaint alleges, as amended at the hearing, that Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company unlawfully recognized Teamsters Local 541 as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employ- ees at the Olathe plant of Standard Homes Company on February 4, 1972, at a time when Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of the Olathe plant employees and when a substantial and representative complement was not yet employed at the plant. Also alleged as violative of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the. Act was the subsequent execution of the collective-bargaining agreement between Teamsters and Standard Homes Company on February 11, 1972, effective from February 7, 1972. And to remedy these alleged unfair labor practices the General Counsel asks to have me recommend an order setting aside the instant contract. For its part, Respondent contends that the recognition of, and execution of a contract with, the Teamsters at the Olathe plant cannot be found to be unfair labor practices, if only for the reason that said events occurred prior to the 6-month statute of limitations' period set forth in Section conclude they would not have done so but for Respondent's unfair labor practices. Of the employees hired to do homes prefabrication and assembly work at Olathe, six were members of Carpenters Local 1635 and had immediately prior thereto been employed in the Roe Boulevard Carpenters unit-Coffelt, Fisher, Schaffer, Papineau, Dial, and Quick (although Quick and Schaffer were on layoff in February 1972); two more were former employees at Roe Boulevard-Duxbury and Fitzpatrick, where they had been members of Carpenters Local 1635. Only five subsequently hired at Olathe to do homes prefabrication and assembly work (as of September 1972, the last hiring record shown at the hearing) were not demonstrated to have been former members of the Carpenters or one of its locals-Altman, Brown, Michael, Smith and Srausbaugh. The first two of these last five who were hired, Smith and Michael; were not hired until March 21, 1972 Pursuant to the union security provisions of the Carpenters Roe Boulevard contract (art. 11(c)) employees may designate a specific local of the Carpenters in their dues checkoff authorizations-a privilege obviously exercised by the foregoing individuals who belonged specifically to Local 1635. 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10(b) of the Act. I have already found that these events did, in fact, occur prior to the 10(b) period.36 I agree with Respondent's contention. Since the recogni- tion and contract execution occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing and service of the charge in the instant case, the circumstances surrounding these matters cannot be utilized to set aside the contract. Section 10(b) so prescribes.37 Nor does the possibility that such a contract would not serve as a contract bar to a representation petition under principles enunciated by the Board in its General Extrusion Company, Inc., 38 decision serve to invalidate such an agreement in an unfair labor practice case, where the agreement was entered into prior to the 10(b) period.39 Altogether different questions are, however, posed by the further allegations of the complaint that said agreement was enforced in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act with respect to employees at the Standard Homes Company Olathe plant jnd that Teamsters was unlawfully assisted by officials of Standard Homes Company at a time when Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees at said plant. For, as will be discussed, said agreement, including its union security provisions, was applied and enforced to the homes prefabrication and assembly employees at Olathe and said assistance occurred at times clearly occurring within the 10(b) period. And, as already found, Teamsters Local 541 did not represent these employees (even though said employees had become a part of the complement at the Olathe plant) since, despite their assignment to Olathe, such employees continued to be included in the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard, as also already found. I find, for reasons explained hereafter, that Teamsters never represented an uncoerced majority of this group of employees at Olathe nor the unit of which they were, and are, a part. Rather Carpenters, was, and is, the exclusive bargaining representative of these homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company. As previously found, the only individuals working at the time the contract was executed on February 11, 1972, were four who were engaged primarily in unloading lumber, in moving it on forklift trucks, and in making racks. Production did not begin until February 29, i.e., a date by which some six Carpenters unit employees from Roe Boulevard-who had performed homes prefabrication and assembly work at Roe Boulevard-resumed these same 36 1 conclude that the 6-month period of limitation began on or about February 19, 1972, a date 6 months preceding the filing and service of the charge Even if said period were to begin on February 18, 1972 (to account for the shortness of the month of February), this would not alter my conclusion because the events in question occurred on February II or earlier. 37 Local No. 1424, 1AM v. N.L KB., 362 U.S. 411 (1960). 3s 121 NLRB 1165. 39 The Kroger Company, 165 NLRB 872. 1 am not impressed with the General Counsel's argument in his brief that the 10(b) period should begin with the hiring of Coffelt on February 21, because, says the General Counsel, Coffelt was the first employee whose rights were unlawfully affected by the contract. The General Counsel's argument rests on Southern California District Council of Laborers and ItsAffliated Local 1184 v. Ordman 318 F.Supp. 633 (1970), which is distinguishable on its facts. There, no employees were hired when the complained of contract was executed and the court held that the duties at the Olathe plant; the first, Coffelt, having begun work there on or about February 21. It is undisputed that the Teamsters contract, with its lower wage rates and different benefits, was applied to the prefabrication and assembly employees upon their employ- ment at ©lathe.40 I further conclude that this contract's provisions recog- nizing the Teamsters as the bargaining representative of the instant prefabrication and assembly employees and requiring membership in Teamsters as a condition of employment were enforced as to these employees. Thus, Smith advised Coffelt on about February 17, 1972, and Papineau and Fisher a few days later, that the employees at Olathe would be represented by one union, the Team- sters.41 The contract which had already been entered into contains a union security provision requiring membership in the Teamsters as a condition of employment and Coffelt, Fisher, and Papineau did, in fact, subsequently join that labor organization. I am not persuaded that the fact that Kansas is a so- called "Right to Work" state exculpates Respondent from the charge that it enforced the union-security provisions of the Teamsters agreement. That is, the argument goes, since Kansas has a "Right to Work" law union membership must be considered voluntary. F reject this argument on the simple basis of the fact of Smith's foregoing admonition to these three employees that there would be one union at Olathe-the Teamsters.42 If Respondent had intended to rely on the voluntary character of union membership under such a law there would have been no reason for Smith to have advised the employees that the Teamsters was to be the only union at Olathe. However, by making the statement that Teamsters was the only union, in the context of an employment or transfer interview, the implication was clearly left in the minds of the employees that this was the union which they had best join. After these employees had begun work at Olathe, further efforts were expended by Respondent to have them join the Teamsters. Thus, as has already been mentioned in part, Supervisor Kline spoke to Papineau in March 1972 about the matter of Papineau's joining that union. To Papineau's statement that he, Papineau, thought that Kansas had a "Right to Work" law, Kline retorted that Respondent also had a plant in Missouri (which does not have a "Right to Work" law) and there would be nothing 10(b) period began with the hiring of the first employees whose rights were affected by the contract. Here three , or more probably four, employees (if Kline was not then a supervisor) were hired before the execution of the contract. The rights of all three or four would have to be "affected" by the contract, which covered their terms and conditions of employment if, as the General Counsel says, that contract was executed in violation of Sec. 8(a)(l) and (2) of the Act and none could lawfully be deprived of an opportunity to file a charge with the Board so alleging. 40 Except for Fisher during the first 2 days of his employment there. He credibly testified that be worked "unofficially" at Olathe for 2 days, at the Roe Boulevard Carpenters hourly rate, setting up tables and lining up machinery. Thereafter he was paid the Teamsters Olathe leadman rate which was less. 41 Coffelt, Fisher, and Papineau credibly so testified and Snuth did not deny it. 42 In view of Smith's failure to deny these admonitions, I attach no weight to his general testimony that he did not enforce that clause. R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 537 to stop Respondent from transferring Papineau to that location. Papineau subsequently joined the Teamsters.43 Smith also offered to pay Fisher's initiation fee of $100 to the Teamsters several weeks after Fisher began work at Olathe. Fisher declined the offer and paid the fee himself when he later joined.44 The application and enforcement of this contract to these prefabrication and assembly employees would not be unlawful if the work in which they were to be engaged would have been an accretion to the unit work already being performed at Olathe.45 But the work being per- formed at Olathe at the time the contract was executed did not include production and assembly of prefabricated homes. Nor was such production and assembly begun at Olathe until the homes prefabrication and assembly employees from the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard were assigned to work at Olathe on and after February 21, 1972. But, as I have found, these prefabrication and assembly employees continue to be-or are on accretion to-the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard despite their assignment to the Olathe plant subsequent to the execution of the Olathe Teamsters contract. Hence, that contract when applied and enforced with respect to these employees has been applied to employees in a different unit, not represented by the Teamsters. The application of a collective-bargaining agreement with one labor organization (here Teamsters) and enforce- ment of that contract's union-security provisions to employees in a different unit represented by a different labor organization (here Carpenters) is violative of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act,46 even though the contract thus applied and enforced was entered into prior to the 10(b) period. I therefore find that Respondent through Standard Homes on and after February 21, 1972, violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by applying and enforcing the Teamsters Olathe contract to the homes prefabrication and assembly employees who were then, and still are, a part of the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard.47 And in reaching the conclusion that Respondent through Standard Homes Company unlawfully assisted Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, I rely not only on the undisputed application of Teamsters contract to the instant production employees but also upon Smith's aforedescribed statements to Fisher and Papineau in February 1972 and Smith's and Kline's aforementioned remarks to Fisher and Papineau in March 1972,48 whereby I have concluded that Respondent enforced the union security provisions of this contract. 43 Papineau credibly testified to this conversation. Kline did not testify. 44 Fisher credibly so testified. Smith stated in relation to this offer to pay the fee that he, Smith, "sort of left him [Fisher I with the impression that I [Smith ] would check on it and see," but he later told Fisher that "the office" had told Smith that it could not pay the initiation fee. In offering this somewhat different version in his testimony Smith looked at me with a resigned expression on his face. To the extent that the versions differ, I credit Fisher. 45 E.g., The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (Family Savings Center), 140 NLRB 1011. 46 Wolfer Printing Co., Inc., 145 NLRB 695; White Front Stores Inc, 166 NLRB 175. F. The 8(a)(5) Allegations of the Complaint On February 20, 1972, the day before the first of these employees (Coffelt) reported for work at Olathe, Carpen- ters Respondentative Harding sought to discuss the matter of "the transfer" of the instant employees with Hatcher, Respondent's vice president in charge of production (Hatcher was also Respondent's principal bargainer in the Carpenters unit contract negotiations in 1972 and admitted that he had handled Respondent's labor relations prior to that time). Hatcher told Harding there was nothing to discuss because the Olathe plant was a "wholly owned Delaware corporation and was not part of Sweet Compa- ny. To the extent that Hatcher's response may have intended the meaning that Respondent was contending that Stand- ard Homes Company was a separate employer, I have already rejected this contention in my conclusion that Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single employer within the meaning of the Act. I have also already found that the homes prefabrication and assembly employees continue to be a part of-or are an accretion to-the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard notwithstanding the present assignment of these employees to the Olathe plant. I have further found'that the Teamsters contract at Olathe was unlawfully applied and enforced as to these employees after they began work at the Olathe plant. In these circumstances, it follows that Respondent by Hatcher, on February 20, 1972, refused to bargain with respect to the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with Carpenters, the recognized representa- tive of the unit in which these employees were employed. It likewise follows that the application of the Teamsters Olathe contract, with its lower wage rates and different benefits, was a unilaterial change by Respondent, through Standard Homes Company, in the terms and conditions of employment of these employees. Respondent continued its refusal to bargain with Carpenters about these matters by denying Carpenters grievance in March 1972 and also by denying Carpenters request for arbitration in April 1972, both of which dealt, inter alia, with the same unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employment of these employees. ; And the prefabrication and assembly employees at Olathe continue to work under the unilateral- ly changed terms and conditions of employment imposed upon them by the unlawful application to them of the Teamsters Olathe contract. In so refusing to bargain with Carpenters and unilateral- ly changing the terms and conditions of employment of these employees, I find that Respondent itself, and Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company, 47 See Sewanee Coal Operators Association et al, 167 NLRB 172, 181-182, enforcement denied sub nom Tennessee Products & Chemical Corporation v. KLR B, 423 F.2d 169 (C.A. 6, 1970). The Board decision is binding upon me. Prudential Insurance Agents, 119 NLRB 768, reversed on other grounds 361 U S. 477 X1960). Moreover, I am constrained to observe that the Sixth Circuit's disagreement with the Board in the Sewanee case stemmed mainly from its disagreement with the Board' s determination in the underlying representation case as to the identity of the majority representative of the unit in which, the Board found, the contract therein had been unlawfully entered into. 48 See Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, 177 NLRB 25, enfd. 429 F.2d 1352 (CA 9, 1970). 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on and after February 20, 1972, has violated and continues to violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 49 In reaching this conclusion I have carefully considered each of the defenses offered by Respondent and Teamsters at the hearing and in their briefs but reject them. 1. The defense of constructive notice. It is argued that by placing a notice to each employee in the timecard rack at Roe Boulevard in August 1971 informing the employees of the expected move by Standard Homes to Olathe, as well as through the rumors about the move which were rife at the Roe plant thereafter, Carpenters was constructively notified of the move and should have taken prompt action to bargain about it. I disagree. It is clear the Carpenters was never formally notified of the move nor offered a reasonable opportunity to bargain about that move or any consequence from it upon the terms and conditions of employment of the Carpenters unit employees. But even if it could be held that notice to the employees of the move and the aforementioned rumors somehow stand on the same footing as a formal notice to the Union of an opportunity to bargain, I would still disagree that Carpen- ters was thereby given an adequate notice of the opportuni- ty to bargain on this matter. For there is no indication in the notice itself that the move would result in any change in the terms and conditions of employment of Carpenters unit employees. The notice merely recited in this regard that the "new plant [at Olathe] will be occupied by Standard Homes Company, a division of Sweet Lumber," and no mention was made of a separate corporation at the Olathe location. Since the production employees of "Standard Homes Company, a division of Sweet Lumber" were already a part of the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard, the notice provided no basis for any expecta- tion that such employees would not continue to be a part of that unit after the move of the "division" to Olathe. Nor does it appear that the separate incorporation of Standard Homes Company on November 1, 1971, was made known to the Carpenters or the Carpenters unit employees. In fact, despite the existence of this separate corporation, as of November 1, 1971, the Standard Homes production operations continued at Roe Boulevard from November 1, 1971, into February 1972 and the production employees continued to be paid on Respondent's checks, as already found. I conclude rather that the matter was timely raised by Harding's unsuccessful effort to consult with management the day before Coffelt, the first Carpenters unit employee to go to Olathe, began work there. 2. Exercise of the prerogative of management rights under the management rights clause of the Carpenters contract. While management obviously has the right to make management decisions under a "management rights" contract provision this does not permit management to avoid the obligation to bargain about any change in the terms and conditions of employment which might result from such management decisions. While it is true that a labor organization may enter into an agreement in which it waives the right to bargain about mandatory subjects of bargaining (wages, hours, etc.) such a waiver must be "in clear and unmistakable" language and will not readily be implied.50 I find no clear and unmistakable language in the management rights provision of the applicable contract herein whereby Carpenters could be deemed to have waived the right to bargain over reassignment of unit employees and unit work at lower wage rates and different benefits than they were already receiving. 3. The employees themselves agreed to the assignment at Olathe. Since by obtaining the employees' agreement to the assignment, Respondent thereby bypassed their bargaining representative, this defense need not detain us long. Bypassing of the bargaining representative in a situation wherein an employer refuses to bargain with the employ- ees' exclusive representative about these same matters is the very practice inveighed against by the Supreme Court in Katz, supra. 4. The Carpenters failed to raise the question of the relocation of bargaining unit work and unit employees to Olathe when Carpenters bargained with Respondent in the spring of 1972 for a new contract covering the Carpenters Roe Boulevard unit. It is undisputed that no mention was made by Carpen- ters or Respondent of the matter of the relocation of the Standard Homes prefabrication and assembly employees and their work to the Olathe plant, when Carpenters and Respondent bargained in the spring of 1972 for a new agreement covering the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard. However, I do not believe that Carpenters' failure to bring up the matter during these negotiations absolved Respondent of any obligation to bargain about it. For Carpenters is not required to engage in a futile act. The door to bargain on this subject had already thrice been closed in Carpenters' face before the spring 1972 negotia- tions had begun-when Hatcher refused Harding's request to discuss the matter on February 20, 1972, after the first Carpenters unit employee, Coffelt, was about to begin work at Olathe; again when Carpenters grievance over this matter was rejected by Respondent in March 1972 and for the third time when Carpenters request to arbitrate the issue was also rejected by Respondent in April 1972. 5. The fact that the Carpenters contract coverage was explicitly limited to the Roe Boulevard plant." The agreement which was in effect at the time of the relocation of the homes prefabrication and assembly work (and the employees performing that work) from Roe Boulevard to Olathe was the Carpenters Roe Boulevard contract which was effective from June 1, 1970, to April 30, 1972. The aforementioned management rights clause (art. XIX) speaks of the "management of [this] plant" in the singular. But at the time this agreement was entered into on June 30, 1970, all of the instant work and employees were located at the Roe Boulevard plant. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that this language precludes Carpenters from bargaining over work or employees subsequently removed from the "plant" to another location, again, as supra, in the absence of "clear and unmistakable" language to the contrary. For, to hold otherwise would mean that an employer operating under a ae See N.L.RB. v_ Benne Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962). The Timken Roller Bearing Co., v. N.LR.B., 325 F.2d 746 (C.A. 6, 1963) so E.g., Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company, Inc., 147 NLRB 1506; cert denied 376 U.S. 971 ( 1964). R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 539 collective-bargaining agreement containing such language could avoid that agreement and its bargaining obligation entirely, merely by a unilateral, shutdown of the "plant" and removal of all plant work and employees to a location only one city block away. I accordingly, conclude that Respondent itself and Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with Carpenters and by unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of these employ- ees after their assignment to Olathe 51 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent and Standard Homes Company, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent 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 itself and by and through Standard Homes Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that both companies cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since I have concluded that Respondent itself and by and through Standard Homes Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act in certain respects, I shall recommend that Respondent and Standard Homes Com- pany recognize Carpenters as the collective bargaining representative of the homes assembly and prefabrication employees now working at `Olathe as a part of the Carpenters unit of Respondent at Roe Boulevard and that Respondent and Standard Homes bargain collectively upon request with Carpenters as the exclusive representa- tive of the instant homes prefabrication and assembly employees as a part of that unit. Having found that Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by rendering unlawful support and assistance to Teamsters Local 541 at the Olathe plant and enforcing that labor organization's union security agreement, I shall recommend that Respondent and Standard Homes Com- pany withdraw recognition from Teamsters Local 541 as the representative of the homes prefabrication and assem- bly employees now working at Olathe, both until they have complied with the bargaining order described supra, and unless and until Teamsters Local 541 has been certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate, infra I shall also recommend that Respondent and Standard Homes Company cease applying the provisions of Team- sters Olathe contract to said employees. Having found that Respondent unlawfully applied and enforced the union-security provisions of said contract to the said employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(l), (2), and (3) of the Act, I shall further recommend that Respondent and Standard Homes Company be required to reimburse the present and former homes prefabrication and assembly employees for all initiation fees, dues or other moneys exacted from them in favor of Teamsters Local 541, 51 While I am satisfied that these violation findings soundly rest on my other findings and the Katz decision, supra, I am constrained to observe that the General Counsel has also established a violation of Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) on a separate theory which will appear infra. I make this alternative finding in the event the Board or the courts disagree with my conclusions-that Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single employer within the meaning of the Act; that the homes prefabrication and assembly operations at Olathe remain part of, or are an accretion to, the Carpenters unit at Roe Boulevard; and that the Teamsters Olathe contract was unlawfully applied and enforced as to said employees. For if the Respondent and Standard Homes are separate employers within the meaning of the Act and there has been no accretion and the Teamsters contract was lawfully applied and enforced as to the instant employees, I would nonetheless conclude on the basis of my other findings supra in this section of my decision, that Respondent discontinued its prefabrication and assembly Carpenters unit work at Roe Boulevard, on and after February 20, 1972, without giving Carpenters an opportunity to bargain about the effects of this action and has thereby violated and continues to violate Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Regal Aluminum Inc, 190 NLRB. All the elements of proof of this violation have already been found with the possible exception of "substantial impact" or "substantial detriment" to the employees who left the homes prefabrication and assembly operation at Roe Boulevard to work at Olathe. I conclude that this detriment is established by the fact that if it is assumed that Standard Homes Company is a separate employer-at least six employees in the Carpenters Roe Boulevard unit lost their jobs with Respondent. See Regal Aluminum, Inc., supra. I am not persuaded that this loss of jobs can be said to be mitigated by the voluntary acceptance of work at Olathe by these employees. For it is manifest that such voluntary acceptance was obtained in circumstances involving the bypassing of their bargaining representative. See Katz, supra; Regal Aluminum, Inc., supra Moreover, while there is testimony by Mrs. Sweet that the Carpenters unit employment in mid-February 1972 (presumably before the move) stood at 15 and continued to be 15 in July 1972 (after the move) this provides no assurance that the 6 who went to Olathe would have remained in the unit. For there is no showing that all were qualified to perform the more highly skilled Carpenters unit mill work (e.g., manufacture of window and door units) which is still being tamed on at Roe Boulevard nor was there any assurance that they would have even found employment elsewhere in the plant (Williamson, the representative of Teamsters was told by We Long, as previously found, that 7 employees from the Teamsters unit at Roe Boulevard were to be laid off as the result of Standard Homes moving from that location). Even if my finding that Standard Homes Company and Respondent are a single employer is sustained-but my accretion and unlawful contract application findings reversed-this detriment is also established by the loss of hourly wages in the amount of $.565 per hour (the difference between the journeymen carpenters rate which these employees received at Roe Boulevard, $5.065 per hour, and the highest paid leadman rate, $4.50 per hour, under the Teamsters Olathe contract) and by the potential loss of retirement benefits under the, Carpenters contract. See Cities Service Oil Company, 159 NLRB 1204. Hatcher testified that the mill and homes prefabrication and assembly employees had all been paid at the journeyman ($5.06) rate. Coffelt, Schaffer, and Fisher also testified that,they had received this rate (Coffelt with an increment) when working at Roe Boulevard I find inapposite, on its facts, the court's decision in Fraser and Johnston Co. v. N.L R.B., 469 F.2d 1259 (C.A. 9. 1972). relied on in Respondent's brief, wherein the court refused to enforce a bargaining order of the Board to remedy a somewhat similar violation. There, unlike here, the entire plant was shut down at one location and moved to another. Here, only a part of the Carpenters unit has been moved and the remainder of the unit clearly continues in existence at Roe Boulevard. If the Board or courts uphold my violation findings based on Regal Aluminum, supra, but reverse all my other violation findings, I would recommend the remedy found appropriate in Regal Aluminum, rather than the remedy which I shall recommend. 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD including interest thereon at 6 percent per annum computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of North America, etc., 138 NLRB 1142. J. Howard Jenks d/b/a Glendora Plumbing, 165 NLRB 101, 103; 172 NLRB 1700. And it will be recommended that Respondent and Standard Homes Company be ordered to cease giving effect to any Teamsters checkoff authorizations of said employees and to cease offering to pay Teamsters initiation fees for such employees.52 It will be recommended that Respondent and Standard Homes Company make whole each of the aforementioned present and former employees for any loss of pay or other benefits which they may have suffered (as the result of Respondent's unilateral application to them of the terms and conditions of employment of the Teamsters Olathe contract with Standard Homes Company in late February 1972) with interest at 6 percent per annum and that they continue such payments53 until such time as Respondent negotiates in good faith with Carpenters to agreement or impasse.54 Further, it will be recommended that Respondent and Standard Homes Company preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll records, social secunty payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and useful to determine the amount of moneys due under the terms of the foregoing recommendations. Finally, it will be recommended that the Respondent and Standard Homes Company be required to post an appropriate notice at their respective involved locations. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Carpenters and Teamsters are both labor organiza- tions within the meaning of the Act. 3. By the conduct set forth in section III, above, Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company has rendered unlawful assistance and support to Teamsters and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 4. By enforcing the provisions of the union-security agreement of the Teamsters contract to the homes prefabrication and assembly employees at Olathe thereby 52 I recommend that the Teamsters initiation fees, dues or any other moneys exacted under the Teamsters Olathe contract be reimbursed to these employees and that their checkoff authorizations no longer be implemented in order to remedy fully the 8(a)(5) violation which I have found, in addition to remedying the 8(a)(1),(2), and (3) violations which were also found. For the union security provisions of the Teamsters contract at Olathe are part and parcel of the terms and conditions of employment unilaterally and unlawfully imposed upon these employees by Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company 53 Such payment will be pursuant to the terms of the Carpenters contract at Roe Boulevard which otherwise expired on April 30, 1972, because I am unable to conclude what bargain might have been struck as to the homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company, had such employees been bargained for as part of Carpenters Roe Boulevard unit in the negotiations for a new agreement in the spring of 1972. See H K. Porter Company, Inc., etc. v. N.LR.B., 397 U.S. 99 (1970); Tudee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234 Nothing in this aspect of my recommended order is, however, intended to preclude an agreement by the parties making encouraging membership in Teamsters and discouraging membership in Carpenters or its locals, Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company, on and after February 21, 1972, has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The following unit is appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of Respondent at its Roe Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas, plant and all employees primarily engaged in the prefabrication and assembly of homes at the Olathe, Kansas, plant of Standard Homes Company excluding delivery truckdrivers, hardwood finishers, all employees covered by Teamsters Local 541 contract at the said Roe Boulevard plant; also excluding all other employees of Standard Homes Company at its said Olathe plant and excluding all office clerical employ- ees, guards and supervisors at both of said plants. 6. At all times material herein Carpenters has been the majority and exclusive representative of the aforesaid bargaining unit. 7. By refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters as the exclusive representative of the homes prefabrication and assembly employees at the Standard Homes Company Olathe plant as a part of the aforesaid bargaining unit and by unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of said employees on and after February 20, 1972, Respondent itself and Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company have violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that R. L. Sweet Company, Kansas City, Kansas, and Standard Homes Company, Olathe, Kansas,55 their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 56 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Assisting Teamsters Local 541, or any other labor organization and from otherwise interfering with the retroactive the effect of the subsequent Carpenters agreement at Roe Boulevard insofar as the instant Standard Homes Company employees are concerned. 54 See Howard Johnson Company, 198 NLRB No. 98 ss Although no charge was filed against Standard Homes Company, it was named in the complaint and its interests were fully and ably represented by its counsel at the hearing. For these reasons and since I have found that Respondent and Standard Homes Company are a single employer within the meaning of the Act, my recommended order shall run against both Respondent and Standard Homes Company. J. Howard Jenks d/b/a Glendora Plumbing, supra. 56 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 541 representative of their employees through a labor organiza- tion of their own choosing. (b) Recognizing Teamsters Local 541, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of the employees in the appropriate collective bargaining unit described below, for dealing with them with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or any other terms and conditions of employment, both until they have complied with the provisions of this order requiring them to bargain with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, and unless and until Teamsters Local 541 has been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees in said appropriate unit. (c) Performing, enforcing, or giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement of February 11, 1972, between Teamsters Local 541 and Standard Homes Company by applying or enforcing said agreement with respect to any employees in the said appropriate unit, or by entering into or enforcing any extension, renewal, modifi- cation, or supplement thereof, or any superseding collec- tive-bargaining agreement with said labor organization, by applying and enforcing any of said extensions, renewals, modifications, supplements, or superseding collective-bar- gaining agreements to any employees in said appropriate unit. (d) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations in favor of Teamsters by Standard Homes Company prefabrication and assembly employees or offering to pay Teamsters initiation fees for such employees. (e) Refusing to bargain collectively with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees of R. L. Sweet Lumber Company at its Roe Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas, plant and all employees primarily engaged in the prefabrication and assembly of homes at the Olathe, Kansas, plant of Standard Homes Company, excluding- delivery truckdrivers, hardwood finishers, all employees covered by Teamsters Local 541's collective-bargaining agreement at Roe Boule- vard plant, all other employees of Standard Homes Company at its said Olathe plant and excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors at both of said plants. (f) Unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of any employees in the aforesaid appropriate collective-bargaining unit. (g) Encouraging membership in Teamsters Local 541 or any other labor organization, or discouraging membership in Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vincinity, AFL-CIO, or any of its locals or any other labor organization, by applying or enforcing a collective-bar- gaining agreement containing union security provisions to employees outside of the bargaining unit covered by said collective-bargaining agreement or by discriminating in any like or related manner in regard to employees' hire or tenure of employment or any other term and condition of employment. (h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Team- sters Local 541 as the collective-bargaining representative of the homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company both until there has been compliance with the provisions of this Order requiring bargaining with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, and thereafter and unless and until Teamsters is certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the appropriate unit described, supra. (b) Reimburse each of the present and former homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys, if any, exacted pursuant to the terms of the union- security agreement between Standard Homes Company and Teamsters Local 541 on and after February 21, 1972, as set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. (c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and, Vicinity, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Standard Homes prefabrication and assembly employees as a part of the appropriate unit described above, concerning the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employ- ment of said prefabrication and assembly employees. (d) Make whole any present or former homes prefabrica- tion and assembly employees of Standard Homes Compa- ny for any loss of pay or other benefits they may have suffered as the result of the unilateral action of Respondent by and through Standard Homes Company in applying the terms of Teamsters Local 541's Olathe, Kansas, collective- bargaining agreement to said employees, with interest at 6 percent per annum, and continue such payments until such time as Respondent and Standard 'Homes negotiate in good faith with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, to agreement or impasse with respect to said employees. (e) Preserve, and make available to the Board or its agents, all payroll and other records, as set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. (f) Post at the Roe Boulevard plant of Respondent and the Olathe plant of Standard Homes Company copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."57 Copies of this notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by the appropriate representative of Respondent and by the appropriate representative of Standard Homes Company, 57 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shall be posted by each at its respective aforesaid plant immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by each at its plant to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional.Director for Region 17 within 20 days of the receipt of this Order, what steps Respondent and Standard Homes Company have taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence it has been decided that we, R. L. Sweet Lumber Company and Standard Homes Company, have violated the National Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to post this notice. The National Labor Relations Act gives you as employ- ees, certain rights, including the right to self-organization, to form, join or help unions and to bargain collectively through a representative of your own choosing. According- ly, we give you these assurances: WE WILL NOT recognize Teamsters Local 541 (herein called Teamsters) as the collective bargaining repre- sentative of the homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other terms and conditions of employment of these employees or give Teamsters any other assistance or support with respect to the representation of these employees. WE WILL NOT apply, enforce or give effect to the Teamsters collective-bargaining agreement with Stand- ard Homes Company, or any modification, extension or renewal of such agreement, insofar as the homes prefabrication and ' assembly employees of Standard Homes Company are concerned. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Teamsters, or any other labor organization, or discourage member- ship in Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, or its locals, or any other labor organization by applying, maintaining, or enforcing the union-security provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between Teamsters and Standard Homes Company upon the homes prefabrication and assembly employees,of Standard Homes Company or by discrim- inating in any like or related manner proscribed by the National Labor Relations Act in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment of these employees. WE WILL NO LONGER give effect to Teamsters checkoff authorizations by Standard Homes Company prefabrication and assembly employees nor will we offer to pay Teamsters initiation fees for any such employees. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company as a part of the following appropriate collective bargaining unit: All production and maintenance employees of R. L. Sweet Lumber Company at its Roe Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas, plant and all employees primarily engaged in the prefabrication and assembly of homes at the Olathe, Kansas, plant of Standard Homes Company, excluding delivery truckdrivers, hardwood finishers, all employees covered by the Teamsters collective-bargaining agreement at said Roe Boulevard plant, all other employees of Standard Homes Company at its said Olathe plant and excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors at both of said plants. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with our employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from Teamsters as the collective-bargaining representative of any of the homes prefabrication and assembly employ- ees of Standard Homes Company, both until we have complied with the provisions of the Board's Order requiring us to bargain with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, and thereafter and unless and until Teamsters is certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of the above described appropriate collective-bargaining unit. WE WILL reimburse each of the present and former homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company for all initiation fees, dues and other moneys, if any, exacted from them pursuant to the union-security provisions of the Teamsters collective-bargaining agreement with Standard Homes Company, with interest. WE WILL make whole any present or former homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company for any loss of pay or other benefits they may have suffered as the result of the application to them of the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the Teamsters contract with Standard Homes Company, with interest. WE WILL bargain with Carpenters' District Council of Kansas City and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the homes prefabrication and assembly employees of Standard Homes Company as a part of the above described appropriate collective-bargaining unit. R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY (Employer) R. L. SWEET LUMBER COMPANY 543 Dated By This is an official notice and must not be defaced by (Representative) (Title) anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days STANDARD Hosus from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, COMPANY or covered by any other material. Any questions concern- (Employer) ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 616-Two Gateway Center, Dated By Fourth at State, Kansas City, Kansas 64101, Telephone (Representative) (Title) 816-374-4434.