Truck Drivers, Local 705

210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Truck Drivers, OR Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Union, Local No. 705, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Gasoline Retailers Association of Metropolitan Chicago and Paul J . Accurso, et al., Parties in Interest and/or Parties to Contracts. Cases 13-CB-3571 and 13-CB-457 April 26, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER On June 21, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.3 1. The Administrative Law Judge indicated that "perhaps as many as 300 or more additional instances" of improper conduct toward other gaso- line dealers could be presented within the compass of the general allegations of the complaint in the instant proceeding given sufficient time and opportunity for preparation. To protect the rights of these other gasoline dealers and their employees, since new proceedings would be barred by Section 10(b) of the Act, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Board retain continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of entertaining ad hoc applications for supplemental relief at the foot of the order herein and for granting summary relief thereon as warrant- ed. We are sympathetic to the Administrative Law Judge's concern as to the parties not named in the complaint. However, it is the Board's general policy to have all alleged violations litigated in one proceeding. As we said in Peyton Packing Company, Inc., 129 NLRB 1358, 1360: 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 Respondent excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's conduct of the hearing, alleging that the Administrative Law Judge had a closed mind and, without even waiting to hear all the evidence, indicated by remarks and demeanor that he was prepared to sustain all of the General Counsel's allegations and to reject all of the Respondent's defenses and arguments. 210 NLRB No. 58 Generally speaking, sound administrative prac- tice, as well as fairness to respondents, requires the consolidation of all pending charges into one complaint. The same considerations dictate that, wherever practicable, there be but a single hearing on all outstanding violations of the Act involving the same respondent. To act otherwise results in the unnecessary harassment of respon- dents. We would note here that the Board does not grant respondents second hearings to relitigate allegations made against them because they may have mishandled their defense in the original presentation of the case. Only in the exceptional instance, such as where evidence is newly discov- ered, or where a hearing has been conducted in a prejudicial manner, does the Board grant respon- dents further hearings. The General Counsel's status before the Board in these adversary proceedings is no greater than that of any respondent. In short, the General Counsel is not a favored litigant, and he is not entitled to any privileges not accorded any other litigant appear- ing before the Board. [Footnotes omitted.] Separate litigation of roughly concurrent alleged violations has been held proper where the violations, alleged in the second case "occurred after the complaint issued in the earlier case, were not known to the General Counsel at the time of the earlier hearing, were independent acts, and were not the type of alleged violation commonly known or readily discoverable, even after an exhaustive investiga- tion." 4 There is no reason to believe that this is the case herein. In fact, the General Counsel merely argued that he had insufficient staff and time to prepare and present such additional instances. In our view, this is not an adequate reason to depart from our general rule. Moreover, Section 10(e) of the Act provides that upon the filing of a petition by the Board for enforcement of its order "the court shall .. . thereupon have jurisdiction of the proceeding." In view of this provision, we have serious doubts about our authority to add from time to time employers not named in the complaint to the foot of an order which is before a court of appeals for enforcement. After a careful examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that these allegations are without ment . In our opinion there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Administrative Law Judge's conduct of the hearing was based upon bias or prejudice or that he had prejudged the case . Rather, we think the Administrative Law Judge, in accordance with Sec . 102.35 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, was concerned only with his duty "to inquire fully into the facts to regulate the course of the hearing . . to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce into the record documentary or other evidence . " 3 Chairman Miller did not participate in the decision. 4 Neuhoff Bros, Packers, Inc., 159 NLRB 1710, fn. 1. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 Accordingly, in light of these reasons above, and because we believe that our broad cease-and-desist order, which prohibits the repetition by Respondent of similar conduct and subjects Respondent to contempt if it continues its unlawful conduct will adequately serve the objectives of the Act, we will delete from the recommended Order of the Adminis- trative Law Judge the provision for retention of jurisdiction. 2. The Administrative Law Judge recommended a cease-and-desist provision withholding recognition of Respondent as a bargaining agent at all Metropol- itan Chicago gasoline stations except through secret- ballot Board elections for a period of 5 years. He also recommended that the Order contain a provision requiring Respondent to cease and desist from utilizing employers, owners, officials, supervisors, or agents of an employer to organize employees. These provisions have been modified to conform to the Board's decision in Russell Motors, Inc., 198 NLRB No. 58. 3. The Administrative Law Judge concluded, inter alia, that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(3) in regard to the two Dietzler service stations, Whitehall and Perfection, by refus- ing to recognize or deal with Gasoline Retailers Association of Metropolitan Chicago (GRAMC) as the known bargaining agent for Whitehall; by refusing to bargain with the Dietzlers individually regarding their Perfection station or regarding Whitehall; by threatening to picket and stop deliver- ies of gasoline and other merchandise to the two stations unless they signed Respondent's proffered agreement; and by thereby coercing them into signing these agreements without an opportunity to bargain and to avoid a shutdown of their operations. Respondent argues that it did not violate the Act, even assuming that it refused to bargain with GRAMC over the Whitehall agreement, because there was no multiemployer bargaining relationship between Respondent and GRAMC. We have carefully examined the uncontroverted evidence and conclude that the Administrative Law Judge's findings are fully supported by the record. However, even assuming arguendo the nonexistence of a multiemployer bargaining relationship between Respondent and GRAMC, Respondent clearly violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(3) with respect to both Whitehall and Perfection as this does not affect the individual employer's right, under well accepted agency principles, from selecting and designating any party to act as its bargaining representative . Thus, an employer may choose to bargain through any individual , group, or association when dealing with a union, and coercive conduct by 211 a union in derogation of this relationship violates Section 8(b)(1)(B). Applying these principles herein, Dietzler, in exercising the right to select his own bargaining representative, designated GRAMC. Contrary to Respondent's inference that GRAMC was only a multiemployer bargaining agent, Dietzler in testify- ing about the conversation at the time he signed the bargaining authorization card stated , without contra- diction, "Well, they brought out the card for me to sign and they said they would bargain for me with Local 705." (Emphasis supplied.) Moreover, Respon- dent not only refused to recognize or bargain with GRAMC, thus coercing Dietzler to bypass his bargaining representative, but also rejected Dietzler's offer, as a last resort, to "bargain for himself" for Perfection and Whitehall. For all these reasons , we conclude that Respon- dent's conduct towards Whitehall and Perfection violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) by restraining Whitehall and Perfection in the selection of their bargaining representative. 4. The Administrative Law Judge recommended that Respondent be ordered to reimburse each employer herein who has paid any initiation fees and/or dues or other exactions on behalf of any of his employees or on behalf of himself, under or in consequence of Respondent's service station agree- ment, or as a consequence of Respondent's conduct. Respondent argues that a dues reimbursement remedy is inappropriate as 8(b)(1)(A) employee rights are not involved when, as here, employers pay dues for employees or where self-employed persons pay dues. Section 10(c) of the Act empowers the Board to order violators "to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices, and to take such affirmative action ... as will effectuate the policies of the Act." Here, Respondent, through coercion on the employers, has unlawfully used the employer as its instrument to deprive the employees of their statutory Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A). That the employees' Section 7 rights are violated when Respondent forces an employer to sign its union- security contract and to pay the union dues, should his employees indicate that they do not want the Union, is clear. For Respondent may later argue that its contract is a contract bar, thereby preventing another union from representing the station employ- ees for 3 years. Or Respondent could picket the employer and his employees, asserting that by virtue of its signed contract it was a recognized union, thereby pressuring employees to join the Union, particularly in light of the union-security clause. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to reimburse the employers herein 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for initiation fees and dues paid by them, thereby getting at the source or heart of Respondent's unlawful 8(b)(1)(A) activities. Furthermore, reimbursement of initiation fees and dues to employers in addition to reimbursement of health and welfare premiums to employers is independently justified by Respondent's concurrent 8(b)(1)(B) conduct which deprived the employers of any effective resort to the counseling or aid of their bargaining representative, GRAMC. The employers herein, and indirectly their employees, were victims of Respondent's pattern of illegal conduct. For an employer faced with Respondent's illegal demands had to pay the dues or premiums, or force his employees to do so when they did not select Respondent, or face a siege of picketing and lose his station lease and business and the employees, their jobs. Finally, such reimbursement by the Respondent is necessary not only to effectively compensate the employees and employers herein because of Respon- dent's unlawful activities and to protect their respective statutory rights, but also to effectively discourage Respondent from continuing this type of conduct in the future. To allow Respondent to keep its gains would not only permit Respondent to be unjustly enriched by its past illegal conduct, but would encourage Respondent to continue such conduct in the future. 5. The Administrative Law Judge has recom- mended that the Order include a provision for notifying those whose health and welfare payments are current that they shall no longer be covered after a 30-day period in order for them to obtain substitute coverage if desired. We agree. However, in order to avoid any inequities during this hiatus, we shall also order that during this 30-day period contributions shall be made by Respondent on behalf of any employees at any employer herein currently covered by Respondent's health and welfare plan, and that any claims on the health and welfare fund presently on file or filed during this period will be processed and considered for payment as any other claim made upon the fund. Due to Respondent's unlawful conduct, the employers herein have never been lawfully obligated under any valid contract to make health and welfare contributions on behalf of any of their employees. Accordingly, it is appropriate for Respondent to make such contributions on behalf of the employees now covered during this 30-day period. 6. The Administrative Law Judge denied the Charging Party's application for costs, renewed before the Board, "with some reluctance" on the ground that "the heavy laboring oar was plied by General Counsel who does not seek costs," and on the basis of Russell Motors, Inc., supra. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that costs should not be awarded to the Charging Party. However, we do so solely on the grounds that Tiidee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234, and 196 NLRB 156, is inapplicable because we do not find Respondent's defenses to be frivolous in view of the somewhat substantial legal questions involved. 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, as modified herein, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Union, Local No. 705, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified below: 1. Substitute the following paragraph for para- graph A 1(d) of the recommended Order: "Representing or purporting to represent, or holding itself out as representative of, any employees of the employers herein , unless and until said Respondent has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board to be such representative following a Board election." 2. Delete paragraph A 1(e) and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly. 3. Insert the following paragraph as paragraph A 2(b) and reletter the following paragraphs according- ly: "During the 30-day period after receipt of the notice set forth in the previous paragraph, health and welfare contributions should be made by Respon- dent on behalf of any employees of any employer herein currently covered by Respondent's health and welfare plan, and any claims on the health and welfare fund presently on file or filed during this 30- day period should be processed and considered as any other claim made upon the fund." 4. Delete Section B from the recommended Order and reletter the following paragraph accordingly. 5. Delete "Honorable Elliot L. Richardson as" from paragraph C of the recommended Order and insert "the" in its place. 6. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 213 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a full trial at which we and all other parties had the opportunity to call witnesses and present eviden- ce, the National Labor Relations Board has decided that Teamsters Local 705 has violated the National Labor Relations Act and it has ordered us to post this notice and to live up to its terms. The National Labor Relations Act among other things guarantees employees the right to be repre- sented by labor organizations of their own free choice, if they wish to be represented at all. The National Labor Relations Board has decided that Teamsters Local 705 violated the law through a widespread pattern of unlawful activities affecting the gasoline service station industry throughout the Metropolitan Chicago area. The Board has found that these unlawful activities included, for example: (1) Local 705 induced gasoline station dealers to sign agreements recognizing Local 705 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a majority of station employees, although Local 705 did not really represent those employees; (2) Local 705 required employers to put station employees into the union and to pay initiation fees and dues although the employees were not properly members of Local 705 at all; (3) Local 705 coerced employers and station managers to be members of Local 705-and in certain stations to be the only members of Local 705; (4) Local 705 did not negotiate with station dealers about their employees' pay or other terms and conditions of their employment, although Local 705 pretended to be their representative and although it collected their dues; (5) Local 705 did not see to it that they were paid the wages required by its contracts, nor did Local 705 even inquire what wages you were being paid; (6) Local 705 coerced station dealers to pay dues on and take in as station union members people who were not even employed at the station; and (7) Local 705 told the employers that they do not have to pay their employees the wages required by its contracts with the employers. WE WILL stop doing these things and we will not do them again. Furthermore: WE WILL stop giving effect to such contracts. WE WILL stop collecting union dues, assess- ments, health and welfare payments, or other payments under such contracts or on dues checkoff or other wage withholding or payment authorizations signed by employees under or in relation to such contracts. WE WILL promptly refund to employees of the 82 employees involved in the National Labor Relations Board proceeding, with interest, pay- ments of union initiation fees, dues, assessments, health and welfare payments, and other payments made by those employees or on their behalf under or in relation to such contracts, to the extent required by the National Labor Relations Board Order. WE WILL NOT act or pretend to act for you when we do not really represent you. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of his right to form, join, or assist any labor organization; his right to bargain collective- ly through representatives of his own choice; his right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or his right to refrain from any or all such activities. TRUCK DRIVERS, OIL DRIVERS, FILLING STATION AND PLATFORM WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 705, AN AFFILIATE OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, Room 881, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572. DECISION 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUES STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Judge: Case 13-CB-3571 (82 combined cases),' a proceeding under the National Labor I Parties added on unopposed application of G C at tnal 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Act as amended (29 U.S.C. § 151), et seq. (herein called the Act),2 was, following pretrial held on May 18, tried before me in Chicago, Illinois from May 22 through August 3, 1972. Case 13-CB-44573 was, by my order of October 17, 1972, consolidated with Case 13-CB-3571 in which the record was by the same order reopened .4 By my further order of December 7, 1972, granting joint motion of all parties to receive proof by stipulation and exhibits in lieu of further hearing, the record in Case 13-CB-4457 was closed. Thereafter, briefs were received from the parties on December 21 and 26, 1972, time for filing thereof having been extended upon unopposed applications. (Subsequent applications, not here material, were made and resolved in late February, 1973.) The complaint as amended alleges in essence that in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B), (2), and (3) of the Act, Respondent Union (Teamsters Local 705) threatened and coerced numerous employers into signing purported collective agreements5 recognizing the Union as exclusive collective-bargaining representative of their employees (with mandatory union membership and union member- ship maintenance, union dues checkoff and other pay- ments requirements), although the Union was not the authorized representative of the employees (Sec. 8(bXl)(A) and (2)); the Union deliberately ignored and bypassed, and threatened and coerced employers into deauthorizing or not utilizing the services of, the employers' duly designated collective-bargaining representative, Gasoline Retailers Association of Metropolitan Chicago (the employers' trade association, hereinafter "GRAMC"), but instead to bar- gain on an individual basis and to execute individual agreements with the Union under such threats and coercion (Sec. 8(b)(l)(B)); and the Union through threats and coercion restrained employees from freely designating their own collective-bargaining representatives, thereby vitiating employees' rights and aborting good-faith bar- gaining as contemplated and guaranteed by the Act (Sec. 8(b)(3)). It is alleged that the foregoing activities were and are so extensive in quantity and scope as to constitute a pattern of illegal action on Respondent's part. Although all of these allegations were denied in the answer, at the trial, as will be shown, Respondent presented no witnesses to controvert any of the proof adduced by. General Counsel. Upon the entire records and my observation of the testimonial demeanor of the witnesses , I make the following: 2 Based upon complaint issued by the Board's Regional Director for Regron 13 on December 30, 1971, arising out of charge filed November 18, as amended November 24 and December 10, 1970 The complaint was amended numerous times prior to and during trial, near the conclusion of which General Counsel's motion pro forma to conform pleadings to proof was granted without opposition At the outset of the trial, Respondent herein (Teamsters Local 705) having withdrawn the charge it had filed on December 4, 1970, in Case 13-CA-10262 consolidated with the instant case for trial, Case 13-CA-10262 was, by my order, on unopposed motion of General Counsel, severed from the instant proceeding and dismissed Consolidated with above Case 13-CB-3571 by my order of October 17, 1972. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS II. PARTIES; JURISDICTION At all material times, Respondent Teamsters Local 705 has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. At all of those times, numerous persons, being employers within the meaning of the Act, more specifically identified in the complaint as amended and also referred to hereinbelow in section III, B and table I [all tables have been omitted from publication] have been engaged in the retail sale of gasoline, oil, and related and other products at various locations in the city or metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois. Said employers fall into two categories: (1) category 1, consisting of those employers, chiefly identified in Appendix A of the complaint and as hereinafter found in section III, B and table I, whose retail sales of such products in the representative year 1970 or 1971 exceeded $500,000 per year at each such respective location; and (2) category 2, consisting of those employers, chiefly identified in Appendix B of the complaint and as hereinafter found in section III , B and Table I hereof, whose retail sales of such products in said representative year were below $500,000 per year at each such respective location. As hereinafter found in section III, B hereof, said employers in both of said categories were, at times here material, members of GRAMC and/or had respectively designated GRAMC as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative. As to the employers referred to above as being in category 1, I find that each such employer was at all material times an employer engaged in commerce and whose operations affected and affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. As to the employers referred to above as being in category 2, the complaint (paragraphs VI, VII, and VIII, as amended) alleged that in view of the foregoing (supra ), said employers (being also members of GRAMC) together sold over $500,000 worth of the aforedescribed products shipped directly in interstate commerce to Illinois; that such employers (category 2) were employers engaged in commerce and whose operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act; and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assertjurisdiction over them because their operations are a part of the overall operations and pattern of operations of the aforementioned gasoline dealers in the city and metropolitan area of Chicago, and because the unlawful activities of Respondent Local 705 toward them constitute a portion of an integrated pattern of unlawful conduct by Local 705 toward all of said 4 Respondent's application to the Board for special leave to appeal from my November 15, 1972, order was denied by Board order dated November 30, 1972. 5 I.e., "Service Station Agreement" herein marked Joint Exh. 1, or Carwash Station Agreement (e.g., G.C. Exh. 409). 6 Trial transcript as corrected in the respects set forth in General Counsel's motion on notice of August 31, 1972, and also in his brief, to correct the same, which is hereby granted without opposition. The voluminous transcript contains numerous other obvious, typographical, insubstantial, or not directly material errors which , for reasons of practicality and in the absence of further application by the parties, have been left uncorrected. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 215 gasoline dealers, with the same or similar object, and because of the necessity to provide a meaningful and effective remedy against such unlawful conduct. With regard to these latter allegations of the complaint, Respondent Local 705 moved prior to trial for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the "pattern of conduct" theory is novel and untenable as matter of law to support assertion of jurisdiction (i.e., over those employers in Category 2, supra ). Respondent's application was opposed by General Counsel and was extensively briefed. By order of my colleague Administra- tive Law Judge Arthur Leff, dated March 27, 1972, Respondent's motion was denied, for reasons set forth in Judge Leff's order, including applicable Board precedent (New Furniture & Appliance rivers, Local 196, Teamsters (Biltmore Furniture Manufacturing, Corporation, ),'120 NLRB 1728). Respondent's application for leave to appeal from Judge Leff's order was denied by the Board on April 14, 1972. The foregoing basis for assertion of jurisdiction affecting employers in Category 2, as well as those in Category 1, as alleged in the complaint, is thus the law of this case. The close geographical nexus of Respondent's illicit operations in the Metropolitan Chicago area may be seen from Figure 1 and table I; and their very substantial impact upon commerce is shown in Table I. It is overwhelmingly apparent and beyond reasonable dispute that-as discussed and found in the 82 illustrative instances described hereinbelow (section III, B, infra) -Respondent Teamsters Local 705's) activities ; vis-a-vis the Chicago gasoline service station dealers did in fact comprise and constitute a wide-scale pattern of unlawful conduct as alleged in the complaint. After hearing the case and upon the entire record, I accordingly now find that there has been established herein on the part of Respon- dent Teamsters Local 705 a "pattern of conduct affecting enterprises both within and without the jurisdictional standards" I of the Board, such as to justify and require the Board to "assert jurisdiction over both types of enterprise in order to make the remedy coextensive with the reach of the unfair labor practices,"8 and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over all the unfair labor practices directed by Respondent Local 705 against said Chicago gasoline dealers .9 III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, AND COERCION A. Background and General This case involves a large number of gasoline service stations in the Metropolitan Chicago area and activities of Respondent Teamsters Local 705 in relation to them. The 7 Commission House Drivers, Helpers, and Employees Local 400 (Euclid Foods, Inc), 118 NLRB 130. R New Furniture & Appliance Drivers, Local 196, Teamsters (Biltmore Furniture Mfg Corp ), supra at 1729 See also, N LR B v Reliance Fuel Oil Corp, 371 U.S 224, quoting from Polish National Alliance v. N.LR B, 322 U.S. 643, 648, Iron Workers, Local 577 (Tri-State Steel Erectors ), 199 NLRB 37 9 Id. io Respondent conceded at the pretnal that at the times here material the various individuals hereinafter identified as its business agents or represent- charge estimates 10,000 employees of those service stations to be affected. It is conceded that at no time has Teamsters Local 705 been certified as the representative of the employees at any of these service stations. The complaint alleged and the trial uncovered a broad- scale pattern of improper and unlawful labor practices on the part of Teamsters Local 705. No less than 82 specific instances were presented to establish this pattern. As will be seen, the typical picture was that of one or more of Local 705's representatives 10 confronting a newly estab- lished Chicago gasoline service station dealer with neither evidence nor even claim of representing any employee, but with a preprinted 3-year Local 705 "collective agreement" calling for exclusive "representation" of unit employees by Local 705, with union security and mandatory checkoff of Union dues and other payments-all without negotiation or pretense of negotiation, and with no ifs, ands, or buts 11-upon threat of picketing and stopping all gasoline deliveries to the station. It was stipulated at the trial that at all material times Local 705 represented virtually all truckdrivers carrying gasoline to these service stations. The typical picture also involved a service station where Local 705 represented either none or at best only a minority of the employees-even after these unnegotiated "collective agreements" were signed. Throughout the "contract" relationship period between Local 705 and the dealer as well as before, during, and after the "contract" signing -neither Local 705 nor its representative evinced any interest in the number of employees or their work categories,12 nor in the wages they were receiving or to receive, nor in whether the "contract" terms were being observed. Further typically, the Local 705 representative aimed to persuade the dealer-whom he had thus, under threat of stopping his gasoline deliveries without which the station could not stay in business, coerced into signing the unnegotiated "contract" covering employees whom Local 705 did not represent-to assign or "put into" the Union as many persons as the dealer would agree to assign or "put m." It mattered not who those persons were who were thus assigned or "put in" as "members," so long as "Union dues" were paid on them to Local 705. As will be seen, the persons thus "put in" included station owners themselves (in certain cases the owner was the only "Union member" of Local 705) or close relatives or others not even working at the station; and it was not unusual for the station owner himself to sign the names of employees or others upon Local 705 membership application and dues-checkoff authorization cards, without consulting or even telling the employees, and then the dealer himself making the required "Union dues" payments to the Local 705 atives, as alleged in the complaint (paragraph X) were in fact such. 11 Furthermore, the dealers' designated collective-bargaining representa- tive-GRAMC, their trade association-was ignored, bypassed, or even actively sabotaged through direct solicitation by Local 705 representatives of dealers' signatures on preprinted "deauthorization" certificates. 12 Thus, for example, mechanics-in many cases enlisted or dragooned into Local 705, as will be shown, by their employers on the urging or suggestion of Local 705 or with its acquiescence-are not even within the collective-bargaining unit purportedly represented by Local 705 under the terms of its own "collective agreement." 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representatives who called periodically at the station for the purpose of making "collections"13 and for no other purpose (unless to present a new preprinted 3-year "contract" for signature without negotiation, or to insist that additional employees or persons be "put in" by the dealer). Various permutations and embellishments of this general pattern occurred, as will be seen in the 82 instances about to be described-the illegality varying only in degree and coloration. As to none of the 82 instances did Respondent see fit to produce even a single witness to controvert any of the testimonial or documentary proof of the dealers, which was almost invariably of a high order of credibility; nor did Respondent in any way explain its total failure to call any 14 witnesses. Events antedating the "10(b) period" were received and are referred to only as background serving to explain or shedding light on subsequent events, conversations, documents, or data material to this proceeding; they do not form the basis for any finding herein. The gasoline service stations here involved, in the specific instances to be described, are shown on figure 1 [omitted from publication] which is a photographically reduced detail of Joint Exhibit 3, the numberings on which correspond to the "Instance Nos." which follow here. We proceed accordingly with an account of what the proof - encompassing months of trial-showed at these gasoline service station locations, findings of fact, and the pattern thereby plainly and overwhelmingly established. B. Facts Found 1. Instance 1: Accurso Service Station (4002 W. Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois The complaint15 alleges that since at least October 1, 1970, gasoline station owner Paul Accurso has been represented for collective bargaining by GRAMC; that in October 1970 Respondent Union through its agent Daniel ("Danny") Ligurotus (Ligurotis) attempted to cause Accurso to deauthorize GRAMC and deal with Respon- dent directly, and, although Respondent did not represent a majority of Accurso's employees, threatened Accurso with picketing and stoppage of his gasoline deliveries if Accurso did not sign a collective agreement containing a union-security provision with Respondent, which Accurso did because of such threats. Uncontroverted 16 credited testimony of Paul Accurso establishes that he has owned and operated the Shell Oil gasoline Service Station at 4002 West Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, since March 1966, currently under a 3- year lease requiring 18-hour-per-day operation; and that the station's gross operating revenue in 1970 was around 13 It was stipulated at the trial that the following schedule of required union dues and other payments was in effect at the following times: Monthly union dues per employee, 1967-70,-$6 00, 1970-73, 7 00 Weekly union health & welfare payments per employee, 1967-70, $5 00, 1970-73, $6.50 Chart. 14 Other than an accountant testifying pro forma regarding certain record procedures. $400,000, 60-65 percent was from gasoline sales (the remainder from sales of oil and miscellaneous other merchandise, and minor repair work). Accurso has been a member of GRAMC since July 1966, with its emblem-a distinctive, large, and colorful decal -prominently displayed in his station window. In January or February 1968, "Danny" Ligurotus, a "business agent" of Local 705, entered the Accurso service station and indicated to Accurso that a union contract was in course of preparation and would be presented to him for signature. Accurso stated that he did not want to sign the contract and that his employees did not desire to be in Local 705. (At this time, Accurso was already paying his employees the same wages as the union scale , with also vacations and hospitalization benefits.) Ligurotus replied that in that case Accurso would not get gasoline deliver- ies 17 and that his station would be picketed. Ligurotus added that "[You] will [have] to have at least two men in the union." At that time, Accurso employed four regular full-time and one regular part-time employees, in addition to himself. In March, Ligurotus returned, in the company of several others whom he introduced as his fellow "business agents" and insisted that Accurso sign the union contract. When Accurso again declined to do so, Ligurotus reiterated his threats to stop gasoline deliveries and to picket. Faced with these threats, Accurso entered into the contract (a preprinted form "collective agreement") and enlisted two of his employees to become "members" of the Union after explaining "the situation" to them.18 At no time did Ligurotus (or any other Local 705 business agent) establish, offer to establish, nor even claim that he represented a majority of Accurso's employees; nor did he ask how many employees worked there. Accurso having signed the "collective agreement" with Local 705 under the described circumstances, Ligurotus visited the station each 3 months thereafter to collect from Accurso "Union dues" and Accurso mailed in additional "health and welfare" payments covering the employees thus inducted into membership. In 1970, the employment level at the Accurso station increased to four full-time and two regular part- time employees, with never over two as "members" of the Union. In mid-October 1972-approximately 2 weeks after Accurso had executed a current GRAMC collective- bargaining authorization card-Ligurotus approached Accurso to sign a preprinted statement, presented to Accurso by Ligurotus, that Accurso had not authorized GRAMC to bargain for him. When Accurso refused to do so, indicating it was contrary to fact, Ligurotus warned that "It wouldn't do [you] any good" since the Union did not recognize GRAMC as a bargaining agent. Accurso nevertheless refused to sign the "deauthorization" docu- 15 Throughout this decision, references to the complaint are to the complaint in its final amended form. 16 Throughout, uncontroverted is used to mean uncontradicted or unrefuted by other evidence, testimonial or documentary. 17 As mentioned above, it was stipulated at the trial that at all material times Local 705 represented substantially all of the truckdrivers of the gasoline suppliers supplying gasoline in the Chicago metropolitan and surrounding areas to gasoline service stations, including all or substantially all of the employers mentioned in the complaint as amended 18 There is indication that one of the men (Cleveland) had been a member of the Union since 1961. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 217 ment presented to him by Ligurotus. Returning later in October, Ligurotus informed Accurso that a new union contract would be presented to him. Accurso indicated that, upon advice of GRAMC, he would not sign it. Ligurotus threatened that in that case he would be picketed and receive no gasoline deliveries since his gasoline supplier's truckdnvers-all members of Local 705-would not make deliveries. Returning again in November (1970), Ligurotus present- ed a preprinted Local 705 form "collective agreement" to Accurso for signature. Accurso again refused to sign it. Ligurotus stated that Local 705 did not recognize GRAMC as Accurso's bargaining representative; that GRAMC had been "thrown out of court"; and again threatened that, unless Accurso signed, Ligurotus would emplace pickets and prevent Accurso from obtaining gasoline deliveries. Faced with this threat, Accurso signed the preprinted "collective agreement." At this time, Accurso had in his employ four regular full-time and two regular part-time employees, only two of whom were "in the union." 19 At this time (November 1970), as well as on the former occasion (1968) and at all intervening times, neither Ligurotus nor any other Local 705 spokesman claimed to represent any of Accurso's employees, nor was any inquiry made as to how many persons were employed at the station; nor was any observed ever to speak to any employee. After signing the 1970-73 "collective agreement" under the described circumstances, Accurso continued paying the union dues and health and welfare payments for two (i.e., less than a majority) of his employees himself and without deduction from their pay (to Ligurotus' knowledge), until around early March 1971, when he informed Ligurotus -who had called for "collections"-that he had signed the contract based upon Ligurotus' misrepresentation that GRAMC had been "thrown out of court" and did not represent Accurso. Accurso has made no payments to the Union since then. The foregoing testimony of Accurso, delivered with impressive credibility and uncontroverted by Ligurotus (who, without explanation, was not produced to testify) or otherwise impeached, is credited. I find that the described allegations of the complaint, essentially . - there set forth, relating to Paul Accurso have been established by substantial credible evidence. 2. Instance 2: Adams Service Station (48 E. Garfield Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois) The complaint allegations concerning the Adams Service Station are substantially similar to those regarding the Accurso Service Station, described above. Uncontroverted credited testimony of Jimmy Adams establishes that since 1954 (in corporate form since 1962) he has owned and operated the Standard Oil gasoline service station at the above address in Chicago, currently 19 One of the two was Tidwell, who around 1969 had replaced another employee whom Accurso had enlisted into union membership as described above. When Tidwell was hired by Accurso, Accurso explained to Tidwell that he would "have to" join the Union since Accurso "had to have two men in the union." Tidwell did so, although he was unwilling and at first demurred. It is further to be noted that Tidwell is Accurso's second shift (4 under a year-to-year lease requiring around-the-clock operation; and that the station's gross receipts for 1970 were around $340,000, of which 75 percent is ascribed to gasoline sales (of the 25 percent remainder, 20 percent to carwashing to 5 percent to miscellaneous sales and services). Adams has been a member of GRAMC since 1954, formally designated it as authorized bargaining agent on August 14, 1970, and has prominently displayed its membership emblem on the station's front door. Adams first signed a "collective agreement" with Local 705 in 1954, when he opened the station, renewing it trienially. At no time prior to the 1970 events to be described did any Local 705 spokesman attempt to establish nor even indicate or claim that he represented any employee at the Adams station; nor was any Local 705 representative seen talking to any employee; nor was any wage or other term, condition, or provision of any contract discussed or so much as mentioned; nor did Adams ever observe any provision of any such "contract." However, from 1954 to 1968 Adams faithfully paid "dues" on behalf of a "required" number (maximum three, of an average total of nine) employees, to the union collector who came around every 3 months and made collections in cash. At no time was the union collection agent or any other union representative observed to have any conversation or contact with any employee; nor did any of them ever ask Adams how many persons were employed at the station. When the union spokesman notified Adams in 1968 that it was "time to sign another contract," Adams signed another 3-year contract (1967-70) and continued his prior prac- tices. In late 1969 or early 1970, the previous union representa- tive's activity at the station was taken over by its representative, Jerry Spizzeri (Spizzinri). In September 1970 Adams observed Union Representatives (Reverend) James Jackson and George Gilmore start to engage in conversation with a station employee, who turned away, followed by Jackson, who "grabbed him by his arm and turned him around to him." When Adams approached and interceded, Jackson warned that he would "put every man that [you have ] in the union ... if [you ] didn't sign the contract and ... cut [your] gas supply off." Adams ordered him out of the station. Jackson and Gilmore left, but indicated there would be a return. In December (1970) Spizzeri visited the station twice, each time demanding that Adams sign a contract, but Adams refused (on the stated ground that he and other dealers had agreed not to sign). When Spizzeri returned again in January 1971, on the same mission, Adams signed the contract. At this time, Adams had 10 employees (9 regular full-time and 1 regular part-time, exclusive of himself, although not a single employee of Adams was a member of Local 705, Adams was paying "Union dues," as well as health and welfare payments, on three of the employees and also on himself 20 At no time did any union representative inquire of Adams how much he was paying his p.m to midnight) or night manager and clearly a supervisor. 20 As in many other instances herein described, at various stations, the indicated facts as to payment of "Union dues" on employees without their apparent knowledge, or on employers themselves (or their relatives not even employed at the station), or on previous employees no longer employed at the station, are established by uncontroverted documentary proof consisting (Continued) 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees. At no time did Adams observe any provision of the 19773 contract.21 Without explanation, no witness or documentary proof was produced by Respondent to controvert any of the foregoing testimony and proof, which I credit.22 I find that the complaint allegations, essentially as set forth, concerning Adams Service Station, Inc. (James ("Jimmy") Adams), have been established by substantial credible evidence. 3. Instance 3: Anderson Service Station (2201 S. Kedzie Avenue, Berwyn, Illinois) The complaint allegations concerning the Anderson Service Station parallel those regarding the Adams and Accurso stations, already described, and many others to be described. Anderson's uncontroverted credited testimony establish- es that he has owned and operated the Shell Oil service station at 2201 South Kedzie Avenue, Berwyn (Chicago), since November 1966, at which time he hired an entirely new crew of employees to work there.23 His gross volume of business at the station in 1970 was $220,000, of which 70-80 percent was for gasoline sales. He has been a member of and has prominently displayed on his station door the distinctive emblem of GRAMC since 1968, and also executed an express bargaining authorization to it on September 2, 1970. Early in 1967 a union representative approached Anderson at the latter's gasoline station and, stating that "the station had always been in the Union," told him that he "had to have one man in the Union." He did not claim to represent any of Anderson's employees. When Ander- son indicated that he could not afford to comply with this demand, the union spokesman threatened that if he failed to do so he would not obtain any gasoline deliveries because the gasoline truckdrivers all belonged to the Union. Anderson therefore acceded to the demand to place one of his employees into the Union, for that purpose selecting his brother-in-law, Nelson, a mechanic, whose name Anderson signed to the union card and dues checkoff authorization in the presence of the union agent but without Nelson's permission or consent and without Informing Nelson. From then until April 1969, Anderson kept only one employee (i.e., Nelson; and, after Nelson left, Jackson, likewise a mechanic, not in the "bargaining unit") in the Union, although he had an average workcrew of five employees during 1968 and 1969. In 1969, following a conversation with a union business agent who insisted that Anderson place three employees into the Union, a compromise was effected under which Anderson enlisted only one additional employee-Bates, for whom he received a union dues-checkoff card from the union agent-into the Union, thereby making a total of 2 (or, still a minority) station employees "in" the Union. In early 1970, when, in addition to himself and a partner, Anderson had five regular employees (three full- and two part-time) at the station, he was visited at the station by Union Business Agent (Reverend) James Jackson (in company with another individual), who "asked for the whole service station" into the Union. Anderson declined, pleading he could not afford it. However, when Jackson returned a few days later and threatened to have the station picketed if Anderson did not put another man into the Union, Anderson placed himself into the Union, thus comprising three (i.e., mechanic Nelson, Bates, and himself) union "members" out of seven persons (including himself and a partner; or, two-one of them a nonunit employee-out of five nonowner employees) at the station. Union Business Agent Jackson, again accompanied by another individual, returned to the Anderson station in December 1970 or January 1971, demanding that Ander- son sign a new contract (also containing a union security provision) with the Union. When Anderson refused, Jackson warned him that he "had to sign it." Anderson continued to refuse, pointing out that GRAMC was fighting the union "in court," to which Jackson replied that that was "a bunch of stuff" and that GRAMC had "lost the case." When Anderson nevertheless refused to sign up, Jackson threatened "he would picket me and he stormed out," to return about a week later with renewed demands. When Anderson persisted in refusal to sign the "contract," Jackson threatened that gas deliveries would be stopped because "the truckdrivers were in the same Union and wouldn't cross their picket line," and that Anderson would have to put all of his employees into the Union or else Jackson's "boss wanted $50 a month . . . to keep the rest of the employees out of the Union," Anderson's opposition caved in and he signed the preprinted form "contract" which Jackson presented, but on the "compromise" basis that Jackson would put only one additional man "into" the Union if Anderson paid him $25 per month or $75 per quarter "under the table," in addition to and etaausive of the required union dues and health and welfare payments. Anderson acceded and thereafter in fact did pay those moneys. The proof establishes that Anderson made those "extra" payments to Jackson not only in cash but also by checks which Jackson agreed to take only if made payable to "Cash." 24 of forms filed with the Union (in certain cases subpenaed from its own records) or canceled checks. 21 It will be recalled that at no time, either, had Adams observed any provision of any of the previous contracts with Local 705 since the very first one in 1954. 22 Respondent discontinued cross-examination of Adams when I sustained his plea of the 5th Amendment in response to Respondent's question as to whether he had ever deducted from any employee's wages the amounts he paid over to the Union on their "behalf." My reasons for sustaining this plea of Constitutional protection against self-incrimination are explicated in detail upon the record in connection with my sustaining of a similar plea by General Counsel witness Frank Wintercorn (instance 80, infra ), who testified early in the trial. 23 Although Anderson conceded on cross-examination that he does not know whether the previous owner of the station had a union contract, even assuming he did (not established by Respondent) it would be immaterial here under NLRB. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc, 406 U.S. 272 (1972) Respondent concedes that in view of Burns its existing contracts were not in any event binding upon subsequent service station owners. 24 The testimony of Anderson to this effect was so vigorously assailed by Respondent on cross- or recross-examination, and because of its potentially grave implications was even accepted by me with considerable reserve, that I directed Anderson-who had brought with him no documentary proof to corroborate his testimony-to return later in the day with any corroborative documentation of such payments. He did so, returning with documentation thoroughly supporting his earlier testimony-consisting of checks made out TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 Anderson conceded that he did not in fact deduct from his employees' wages any of the sums he was paying to Local 705 for their union "dues." 25 At no time did Anderson pay his employees the wages called for by any Local 705 "contract",- nor did Anderson negotiate, discuss, or even read the "contract"; nor did Jackson or any union spokesman ever inquire as to what wages were being paid or otherwise visibly service the "contract" in any way on behalf of the employees. Again without explanation-as in every single instance without exception throughout the case-Respondent failed to produce any witness to controvert any of the described testimony, which I credit not only for that reason but also because amply corroborated by documentary proof and also based upon my demeanor observations impressively persuading me of Anderson's credibility. It is accordingly found that the complaint allegations concerning Jeff Anderson (Jr.) have been essentially established by substantial credible evidence. 4. Instance 4: Ashcraft Service Station (1427 S. Harlem Ave., Berwyn, Illinois) The complaint allegations concerning the Ashcraft Service Station are substantially the same as those involving other service stations which have been described, except that it is not alleged that Ashcraft actually executed a current (1970-73) contract with Local 705. Once again, uncontroverted, credited testimony of Treamon Ray Ashcraft-corroborated in part by that of his former employee Neil Atkinson-establishes the facts. Since November 1967 Ashcraft has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 1427 South Harlem Avenue, Berwyn, Illinois,26 a 3-shift, round-the-clock, no-mechani- cal or repair work (the same as all Clark stations) enterprise. The station's gross volume of business in 1970 was about $420,000, of which at least $350,000 represented gasoline sales (the balance, other merchandise). He has been a member of GRAMC since early 1968, prominently displaying its distinctive emblem in his station window; on September 17, 1970, he executed an express written bargaining authorization to GRAMC. In late 1967, when he had from six to nine (including four regular part-time 27 employees, Ashcraft was visited at his station by a Local 705 representative who told him he would "have to sign a new [contract ]," and that it would be acceptable to the Union for him to have only two employees as union members initially but later three. Thereupon, Ashcraft signed the preprinted contract tend- by Anderson to "Cash" and indorsed by Jackson (G C Exhs. 509 & 510) There can be no question that the foregoing "Cash" payments were for something "extra" or apart from the regular union dues and health and welfare payments, which were always made by check Thus, for example, although the "extra" payment checks were made payable to "Cash" and are indorsed by Jackson (G C Exhs 509 & 510), the Union dues and health and welfare payment checks are made payable to Local 705 or its health & welfare fund and are indorsed by the Union's deposit rubber stamp (G.C Exhs. 512 & 511) There was no cross-examination of Anderson when he returned with these corroborating documents 25 He also testified that he made a claim, paid on behalf of a dependent, upon the health and welfare fund, in the early part of 1970, prior to his signing the 1970-73 contract It will be recalled that as a result of Union Representative Jackson's insistence that he "put" more employees into the Union, Anderson had placed himself into the Union in early 1970 219 ered to him, with himself and employee Mike Palos as the "Union members." When Palos left Ashcraft's employ in December 1967, he was succeeded as the "Union member" by Ashcraft's cousin, Gleness McCoy, whose name the union representative signed on a union dues-checkoff "authorization" card.ms Ashcraft himself continued to carry and pay for himself as one of his station's "Union members" from 1967 to 1970, during which period his usual complement was six to nine (three full and six part- time, including himself), with never over three and usually only two (always including himself) "in" the Union. In 1968, when Peter Alex took over as Local 705 business agent, he informed Ashcraft that he "wanted me to sign up another man" into the Union. To Ashcraft's rejoinder that Ashcraft's stepfather was Chicago-bound, Alex replied, "I don't give a damn . . . who it is.... I am going to have three cards. . ." Thereafter, it was Alex who acted as collector of "Union dues" at the station. On November 17, 1970, Alex presented another preprint- ed Local 705 contract to Ashcraft for signature. When Ashcraft asked to wait a few days until he could ascertain whether it had been negotiated for him (by GRAMC) and whether Clark Oil would increase his margin, Alex replied that although he would wait a few days, after that he "wouldn't pussyfoot around." Thereupon, Ashcraft in Alex's presence telephoned and inquired from and was informed by Executive Director Albano of GRAMC that the agreement had not been negotiated and not to sign it. Alex then warned Ashcraft that he was "listening to the wrong damn people and it [is] going to get [you] in trouble . you got yourself to think about," adding that Ashcraft should instead join "IGDA"29-a "rival" gasoline dealers association headed by one "Bobby" Jacobs, a former business representative of Local 705.30 Alex urged Ashcraft to remove the GRAMC emblem from his station window, but Ashcraft declined to do so and indicated he would not sign the agreement with Local 705 unless he was fairly represented. Alex then said that Ashcraft could negotiate the contract himself and even through his attorney, and inquired who Ashcraft's attorney was. When Ashcraft replied, "Charles Porcelli" (i.e., the same attorney who represents GRAMC), Alex remarked, "No f-ing good." On the following day (November 18, 1970), Alex informed Ashcraft on the telephone that Clark Oil District Manager Stellings was "taking names of the dealers that hadn't signed the union contracts." 31 Two days later (November 20, 1970), when union representative Alex again visited the station and asked 26 Although when Ashcraft took this station over it was an existing station having a contract with Local 705, with only a single exception (Wright, not a union member) he installed an entirely new workcrew. See fn. 24, supra 27 Respondent conceded at the trial that part-time employees are included in the Local 705 form contracts here in evidence and issue. 28 Although McCoy's name was apparently continued as one of the Ashcraft station's "quota" of Local 705 members, it is to be noted that he worked there only between December 1%7 and April 1968, while on furlough from his usual construction work job , resuming at the Ashcraft station from December 1%8 to April 1 , 1969, only, since when he has not returned to the Ashcraft station. 29 1 e., Illinois Gasoline Dealers Association. 30 So stipulated at the trial. 31 Clark Oil, which has no legal control over its dealers' labor force or policy, is remunerated upon the basis of its dealers' gross sales. It would (Continued) 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ashcraft to sign the contract, other people-including an attorney on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board-were present. Ashcraft refused to sign the "con- tract." Alex said, "You're listening to them guys again, you are going to get in trouble ....the wrong f-ing guys again." When Ashcraft identified one of the parties present as an agent of the National Labor Relations Board, Alex said, "I don't give a damn who he is, f-k him, too." At this time, with a complement of six to nine employees, Ashcraft had only two-himself and Gibson-"in" the Union; and as to Gibson, it was Ashcraft himself who (on October 1, 1970) had signed Gibson's name, in Alex's presence, on Gibson's Union "dues" checkoff "authorization" card and paid Alex $25 and 3 months' "dues." Between November 1970 and February 1971 Alex revisited Ashcraft around a dozen more times to pursue the matter of signing the preprinted Local 705 "contract." On these occasions, Alex continued to press Ashcraft to sign, insisting that he was listening to "wrong guys" and would "get [yourself] in a lot of trouble"; and that Local 705 would picket his station and "shut off all [your] deliveries." When ordered to leave the station, Alex refused to do so. However, Ashcraft adamantly insisted he would not sign an unnegotiated contract. On February 22, 1971, Ashcraft was visited at his service station by Union Business Agents "Eddie" Miller and "Gene" Dicks, who asked why he was holding off on "the contract" and who threatened to stop his gasoline deliveries so that "you will have to close up." Ashcraft continued to insist he would not sign an unnegotiated contract. Thereupon Miller asked Ashcraft whether he would go to the Union personally to negotiate the contract. When Ashcraft replied that he would do so only with his attorney, Miller asked who that was. When Ashcraft said it was Porcelli, Miller responded, "No good" even though Ashcraft stated he would pay him out of his own pocket. Miller threatened to "organize your men 100%." On February 25, 1971, 3 days later, Ashcraft was again visited, this time by Union Representative Alex in the presence of another union spokesman, Jerry Spizzeri- whose name also figures prominently in numerous other episodes already described and still to be described. They informed Ashcraft that it was his "last chance .... to sign a union contract," or else there would be pickets and no gasoline deliveries and they would "force [you] out of business." Ashcraft's answer was that he would haul his own gasoline. Alex's rejoinder was that he would "fireball the gas tank." Although they remained for 4 hours, Ashcraft refused to knuckle under. Thereupon, the two union spokesmen decked out Alex's automobile and nearby poles and other objects with signs stating "Local 705 Teamsters Union on Strike, this station being picket- ed." This continued until March 1, 1971, around-the-clock, with from 2 to 10 union "business" agents and two to six cars involved; the only pickets were Union "business" agents-Alex, Spizzeri, Ligurotus, Jackson, and Miller. Although Ashcraft's employees continued to work, he received no truck deliveries of any merchandise or services (i.e., gasoline, soft drinks, cigarettes, Armored Express money pickups). On March 1 , massive picketing was instituted, involving 20 to 30 or more chrs and 50 to 100 pickets, including Union Business Agents Alex, Spizzeri, and Ligurotus, and truckdrivers, one of whom allegedly accidentally "broke down" in the station driveway so as to block the curbcut entrance but was moved on order of the police. Later that morning (March 1), Ashcraft told Union Agent "Danny" Ligurotus that he (Ashcraft) was going to haul his own gasoline into his station. Ligurotus warned him, "I hope to God you don't try it, son." When the gasoline delivery truck (furnished through GRAMC) later attempted to enter the station, the Local 705 business agents milled into the station entrance and Union Agent Alex moved his car so as to block the gasoline truck from entering; two of the mob opened the gasoline delivery truck gasoline valves, another pulled the linchpin connect- ing the delivery truck cab to the trailer, and another severed the gasoline. When Alex refused to move his car out of the way of the delivery truck, challenging its driver to "go over the son of a bitch," the driver did so and thereafter delivered the gas-apparently under the eyes of the police. At no time did any of Ashcraft's employees participate in any picketing, nor was any employee at any such time a member of the Union. Ashcraft's former employee, Neil Patrick Atkinson, testified that at no time during his 2 years of employment at the station did Union Representa- tive Alex-whom he saw there regularly-so much as ask him to join the Union. The picketing was discontinued a few hours after the gasoline delivery and there has been no sign of the Union since. Ashcraft never signed the 1970-73 "contract." During the preceding years when Ashcraft had had a "contract" with Local 705 (i.e., prior to late 1970), he had himself been paying Local 705 "dues" out of his own pocket, without reimbursement from any of the employee "members." Once again-as in all other instances, already described and to be described-without explanation Respondent produced no witness to controvert any of the foregoing proof, which is credited. I find that the complaint allegations involving (Treamon) Ray Ashcraft have been essentially established by substan- tial credible evidence. 5. Instance 5: Barney Service Station (6040 W. 111th Street, Chicago Ridge, Illinois) The complaint alleges that although Local 705 did not represent a majority of the employees of David Barney at his service station at 6040 W. 111th Street, Chicago Ridge (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, and notwithstanding Barney's having designated GRAMC as his collective-bargattnng agent, Local 705 procured Barney to sign a collective agreement designating Local 705 as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative and requiring all employees to join and maintain membership in Local 705 with a compulsory checkoff of dues to that Union. As in all other instances, those already considered and those to be considered, uncontroverted credited testimony therefore directly stand to lose if a dealer's gasoline sales were prevented through interrupted gasoline deliveries TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 221 of the service station owner concerned-in this case David Barney-establishes the facts here found. David Barney opened the Clark Oil service station at 6040 West 111th Street, Chicago Ridge (a suburb of Chicago), Illinois, in September 1967, and has continued to operate it since then as a round-the-clock enterprise doing no mechanical or repair work. His gross volume of business there in 1970 was $384,000 (85 percent ascribable to gasoline sales, 10 percent to cigarettes, and the balance to other merchandise). He has been a member of GRAMC since October 1967, by express written designation of April 9, 1970, authorized it to bargain on his behalf, and for 8 or 9 months after the latter date prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his service station window. In March 1968, Local 705 representative, James ("Jess") Hall, visited the Barney station and, presenting a preprint- ed form Local 705 "contract," notified Barney that he "had to have three men in the Union," one for each shift, but that for the time being he would "let [you, i.e., Barney] go with two men." Although Hall did not claim to represent any employee and none of the employees was a member of the Union, Barney signed the contract, which was in no way discussed. Subsequently, Barney himself distributed the union cards which Hall had left with him, to station employees Mouser and Murphy. After Barney told Mouser, a part-time, day-shift employee, that he "had to have two men in the union [and that] he was to be one of them," Mouser reluctantly signed the card on Barney's urging. When Barney informed his other designee for union membership, Murphy, a full-time, second-shift employee, that he "had to" join the Union, Murphy also signed up only on Barney's insistence. At this time, Barney had a crew of six regular employees (two full- and four part-time). In June or July 1970 Local 705 representative, Hall, telephoned Barney from the service station-Barney was out at the time-and demanded that Barney come to the station "that minute" and put a third man into the Union or else he would picket, stop deliveries, and audit Barney's books. In consequence, Barney the next day procured his temporary employee, Lord, to join the Union "rather than causing [you, i.e., Barney] and trouble"; Lord even paid the initiation fee out of his own pocket, unlike the other employees, for whom Barney had paid or advanced it. In December 1970, Union Representative Hall presented Barney with a new preprinted contract with Local 705, which he demanded that Barney sign. At this time, Barney had a crew of seven or six employees (two full-time and five part-time), with only two "in" the Union. Barney signed up. Hall visited the Barney service station every 3 months to make "dues" and other payments collections. On several occasions he advised Barney to remove the GRAMC emblem from the station window, warning Barney that if Hall's "boss" ever saw it there Barney would "have to put every man in [your] employ in the union." Apparently Barney acceded by removing the emblem around the end of 1970 or beginning of 1971. Unlike some of the other gasoline dealers here involved, Barney deducted union dues from his employees' wages. (He made health and welfare payments to the Union without reimbursement from the employees.) Again without explanation, Respondent produced no witness to controvert any of Barney's testimony, which I credit. I find that the allegations of the complaint concerning David Barney have been essentially established by sub- stantial credible evidence. 6. Instance 6: Bennett and Dodaro Service Station (2 West Harrison, Harrison & Austin, Oak Park, Illinois) The complaint allegations concerning Respondent Local 705's activities at the Bennett and Dodaro Arco Oil service station at 2 West Harrison (at Austin), Oak Park (another suburb of Chicago), Illinois, are again substantially the same, namely, threats to picket and tie up the station's operations unless an exclusive collective agreement with union-security provisions was entered into with Local 705, although the latter did not represent a majority of the station's employees and although the station had designat- ed GRAMC as its bargaining representative. And again, as in all other cases, the facts are established through uncontradicted and impressively credible testimony of the station owner-operator, in this case Donald R. Bennett. The service station in question-which grossed around $270,000 (about 75 percent in gasoline sales) in 1971-was acquired by Messrs. Bennett and Dodaro as 50-50 partners, under a year-to-year lease, on August 1, 1970. That same month, they were visited at the station by Local 705 Representative "Gene" Dicks, who presented them with its preprinted form contract which he asked them to sign. Since Dodaro was then a member of Local 705 because his dues had been paid by the former owner of the station while Dodaro had been an employee there, Dodaro signed. Bennett, however, who then belonged to Teamsters Local 734 (a bread, cake, and cracker drivers local) refused to sign, even though Dicks offered to "put you down as an employee of B & D ARCO," unless he obtained a withdrawal and transfer card from Local 734. Although Dicks was granted permission to solicit the station employees to join Local 705, both employees whom he approached refused to join. At that time there were two station personnel "in" the Union-Dodaro, a 50-percent owner, whose dues had been paid by a former owner while Dodaro was an employee there, and nightshift employee Sparks-or at most two, out of a workcrew of eight (excluding Bennett and Dodaro) regular (three full- and five part-time) employees. At no time was the contract discussed, nor did Dicks display any membership, bargain- mg, or other authorization card from any employee, nor did he claim to represent any employee. Although Dicks said he would be back in about 2 weeks, apparently he did not return until late October (1970), at which time he ascertained from Bennett that the latter had secured a transfer card from Local 734 but that he did not wish to join Local 705 since he was an employer and had joined GRAMC (on September 18, 1970, at the same time expressly designating it in writing as collective-bargaining representative), pointing to its emblem on the station door. Dicks warned that if Bennett refused to "sign the contract 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or join the Union" he would picket and "tie up the station." Bennett nevertheless refused. Dicks returned to the station on January 11, 1971, and again demanded that Bennett "join the union," stating further that "I want you . . . and all your employees ... . full and part-time to join the union." Bennett continued to refuse, pointing out among other things that part-time employees belonged to another union or unions on their other jobs, and that Bennett's partner (i.e., Dodaro) had already signed a contract with Local 705. Dicks, however, insisted that Bennett also sign it, threatening to picket unless he did. When Bennett reminded him that he was represented by GRAMC, Dicks laughed. Bennett told him to leave. Dicks warned him, "Don't think you're playing with kids." At this time the station had six regular (one full-time and five part-time) employees, with no union members. At no time has the Bennett and Dodaro station paid any money to the Union. Upon the basis of the foregoing testimony, which stands uncontradicted upon the record and is credited, I find that the allegations, essentially as set forth in the complaint, concerning Donald R. Bennett and Anthony Dodaro have been established by substantial credible evidence. 7. Instance 7: Brooks Service Station (3951 W. Harrison St., Chicago Ill.) With substantially the same complaint allegations referring to the Standard Oil service station of Joshua Brooks, Jr., at 3951 West Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois, Joshua Brooks' testimony, recounted below, likewise stands uncontradicted. The service station in question was acquired by Joshua Brooks, Jr., a church deacon, as owner-operator and year- to-year lessee, on November 1, 1968, from prior owner, Hash, who had had four employees, of whom Brooks retained only two (Williams and Hall), hiring two new employees (Joshua Brooks, Sr.-Brooks' father, and Willard Brooks-Brooks' nephew), all four being full-time. The station's gross revenues in 1970 were approximately $150,000 (80 percent from gasoline sales, the balance from other merchandise and labor). In the month after Brooks acquired the station (Decem- ber 1968), he was visited by a Local 705 business agent, who informed him that he would "have to have at least one man into the union," whereupon Brooks signed the contract presented to him and "suggested that we put Nathaniel Hall into the union" and paid $18 for Hall's union dues without ever having Hall sign a membership card or even talking to Hall about it 32 The Local 705 agent did not discuss the contract with Brooks, nor did he claim to represent any of Brooks' employees, nor did he ask how many employees Brooks had. At the time, Brooks had-as has already been indicated-four employees, exclusive of himself. Although the Union agent returned periodically to make collections, at no time was he observed to talk to any employee. In the spring of 1969, the Local 705 Business Agent, known as Reverend James Jackson, took over as collector. As in the case of his predecessor, Jackson likewise at no time inquired how many persons were employed at the station. During 1969-70, Brooks employed four full-time employees there, with only one (Hall) "in" the Union; indeed the same one (Hall) was the only employee "in" the Union during the period 1969-72. During the same period (1969-70), Jackson visited the Brooks station about monthly, only to make collections; on such visits he also discussed religious matters which he and Brooks had in common. On one occasion in 1970 Jackson told Brooks that he "could make [you] take another man into the union," but did not persist. Brooks had joined GRAMC on January 21, 1969, and has remained a member since, with its distinctive emblem prominently displayed in his station window near the door. On August 21, 1970, he executed an authorization card expressly designating it as his collective-bargaining agent. Around the end of November or beginning of December 1970 Union Business Agent Jackson presented to Brooks "the new contracts ... come on and sign them. I am in a hurry, I am a little bit late." When Brooks declined, Jackson said, "You are trying to do like the rest of the guys tell you to do . . . they only get you in trouble ... you know," at the same time warning that "I don't like no guy to get smart with me," that he had picketed nearby dealer Preston Ford who "got smart," and that "one telephone call ....and you know, a gasoline truck won't come across your driveway." Under these circumstances, Brooks -in his own word, "nervous"-signed the contract. Jackson assured Brooks that he "wouldn't have to bother no way" about the wages stipulated in the contract. At no time had Jackson asked how many employees there were at the station (at this time, Brooks continued to have four employees-all full-time, with still only one-Hall-"in" the Union), nor did Jackson at any time offer to negotiate any of the terms of the contract. And at no time did Brooks observe any of the provisions of any Local 705 contract. In June or July 1971-i.e., shortly after inception of the instant hearing-Brooks was visited by Jackson to collect "dues." Brooks refused to pay. Jackson told him to mail health and welfare payments in. This is the last Brooks has seen of Jackson. Again, as in all other instances, the station operator's testimony stands, without explanation, totally uncontrad- icted. It is credited. I find that the allegations, essentially as set forth in the complaint, concerning Joshua Brooks, Jr., have been established by substantial credible evidence. 8. Instance 8: Brown Service Station (3803 W. Roosevelt Rd., Chicago, Ill.) Upon essentially the same pattern of complaint allega- tions as in the other 81 instances here being described, and again-as in all-without contradiction, the testimony of James Edward Brown establishes that he acquired the Standard Oil service station at 3803 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, in August 1967, and since then has been operating that station with a completely new workcrew of b A Local 705 membership card identified by Brooks as bearing Hall's *nature carries the date January 2, 1969. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 his own from another service station he had operated at 16th and Drake.33 Brown became a member of GRAMC on March 20, 1968, authorizing it to bargain collectively on his behalf, and has also been displaying its distinctive membership emblem prominently in the station window. The approximate gross revenue of the West Roosevelt Road station in 1970 was $324,000 (around 80 percent from gasoline sales). In September 1967-about a month after he acquired the West Roosevelt Road Station-Brown was visited by the foregoing two Local 705 emissaries, who called to pick up "the dues." Although the Local 705 collectors called regularly thereafter to collect and Brown made regular payments (of both "dues" and health and welfare contrib- utions), Brown was not asked to sign a contract nor was any Local 705 representative at any time observed speaking to any station employee . During a March 1968 visit to the station by the same two union representatives, Brown signed a new preprinted Local 705 contract which they presented to him with the admonition that it was "time to [renew ]....the contract." At this time Brown had 10 (8 full- and 2 part-time) regular employees at the station, still with only the same two (i .e., Bernard Brown and Joseph Brown) whom he (Brown) had enlisted into Local 705 under the circumstances described. When Brown discharged Joseph Brown in September 1968, Brown placed himself into the Union as a replacement for Joseph Brown after the union representative advised him he could put himself in and paid on himself . Thereafter, Brown and his brother, Bernard Brown , remained as the only "Union members" at the station until June 1969. In June and July 1969, Union Business Agent James Jackson, who had supplanted Edward Miller and the other Local 705 representative, notified Brown that "[You'll ] have to put another man in the union," the same as other stations with the "same volume," so Brown "put [employ- ee] Leroy Patten in." At this time, Brown continued to have 10 (8 full- and 2 part-time) regular employees. At no time did Local 705 Representative Jackson-any more than his predecessors-indicate he or his Union represent- ed any of Brown's employees, nor so much as inquire how many persons were employed at the station, nor ask to nor (so far as known) speak to any station employee . At no time did Brown pay any of his employees the wages called for by any of the Local 705 "contracts" nor otherwise observe those contracts; on a number of occasions, in 1969 and 1970, Local 705 Representative Jackson told Brown that he did not care what Brown paid the employees "as long as nobody squawked about it." At no time did Brown deduct any union dues from any employee's salary; he paid them (as well as health and welfare payments) all himself. At no time did any employee ask to see the "collective agreement," and at no 33 In June 1966 Brown had been visited at his former station at 16th and Drake by two Local 705 representatives, including Edward Miller, who informed Brown that he "would have to become a member of Local 705" and that "the gas truck drivers were members of Local 705 and that if I didn't sign a contract with them, that the drivers could-they could set up pickets and the drivers wouldn't cross the pickets. It would cut off my gas flow." These representatives also gave Brown two Local 705 membership application cards and a preprinted form "collective agreement," telling Brown that they "wanted two men to be put into the union" and that they "didn't care what the salaries were as long as nobody squawked about it." 223 time did any employee indicate he was aware of the wage scale purportedly required by that "collective agreement." On the occasion of his November 1970 visit to Brown's station, Local 705 Representative Jackson advised Brown that it was "time to renew the contract." This time Brown said he did not want to sign it. Jackson responded , "There [isn't] really too much [you can] do about it," warning him that he had better sign it since "as long as the truck drivers [are] part of the Local 705 there [isn't ] anything [you] could do about it," and, furthermore, that if Brown didn't sign he (Jackson) "could talk" to the employees and "get all of them put in and there would be even more burden on [you] than [you] already [have ]." Faced with these threats, Brown yielded and signed the proffered contract for 1970-73. When Brown, noting the provisions in the "agreement" governing wages and vacations remarked, "I [don't] see how anyone can stay in business with [these] wages . . . [and] vacation," Jackson reassured him that these did not have to be paid or observed " as long as nobody squawks about it [and] as long as the men are happy." At this time, Brown still had 10 regular (8 full- and 2 part-time) employees, with only three (i.e., two shift managerssupervisors and his brother, Bernard) plus Brown himself "in" the Union. It is reiterated that at no time did Brown pay any of the "contract" wage scales or otherwise observe those "contracts"; he merely made payments to Local 705 of "dues" and other moneys for the "required" number of "employees," out of his own pocket. The foregoing testimony of Brown is-as in all other cases-without explanation uncontradicted . Crediting it, it is accordingly found that the complaint allegations dealing with James Brown (also known as James Edward Brown) have been essentially established by substantial credible evidence. 9. Instance 9: Buffa Service Station (6129 W. North Ave., Oak Park, Ill.) Substantially similar allegations are made in the com- plaint as to the Clark Oil service station which has been owned and operated at 6129 West North Avenue, Oak Park, Illinois, since February, 1969 by Vito Buffa on an around-the-clock basis, 7 days per week, under a year-to- year lease, with a gross 1970 business of $462,000 (75 percent gasoline sales). When Buffa took that station over at that time he hired an entirely new crew and there was no indication to him from Local 705 that any of the employees of the former station owner need be retained. In the month when he took over (February 1969) Buffa was, however, presented with a preprinted contract and told by Local 705 agent "Gene" Dicks that it was "a unionized station and [you will] have to put three men in the Union." Buffa signed the contract (1967-70), then and there paid union Brown thereupon signed the "collective agreement" and gave the Local 705 emissaries a check to cover the initiation fees for two as yet undesignated "members." None of Brown's employees belonged to the Union, nor did either of the Local 705 emissaries so claim, nor did they ask how many employees Brown had nor seek to speak to any of them After the Union representatives left, Brown procured Bernard Brown (his brother) and Joseph Brown (unrelated) to sign the two Union cards the Local 705 representatives had left with him, explaining to them that "I had to put two men in the union so I was taking those two in as members." At this time, Brown had eight regular employees (seven full- and one part-time). 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD initiation fees and dues for three unnamed employees, and Dicks left three blank union membership application cards. Dicks did not claim to represent any employee nor ask to see any employee, nor ask how many employees there were. Buffa subsequently procured three of his employees to sign the cards Dicks had left by telling the employees they "had to join the Union." At this time, Buffa employed eight (three full- and five part-time) regular employees at the station, and in 1969 and 1970 his work complement (excluding himself) was from six to nine regular employees with at no time over three and at times only two (including his father) in the Union. Dicks called each 3 months in 1969 and 1970 to make collections of "dues" and health and welfare contributions, but was never observed speaking to any employee; on one occasion he left union buttons for Buffa to distribute to the men "in the Union." In August 1969 Union Business Agent Sam Dibenardo ("Sammy DeBenarco") visited Buffa to make collections in the absence of Dicks on vacation. On this occasion, when Buffa informed him that he would only "keep one man in the Union," Dibenardo countered by insisting he would "have to have three men in the Union." When Buffa refused, Dibenardo threatened to "put an investigator here" and "put them [employees] all in the Union." When Dicks called for collections in September, there was a replay between Buffa and Dicks of the Buffa-Dibenardo conversation of August, with the upshot that they compro- mised on putting only one more employee "in the Union," thus making two, for whom Buffa made payments (dues and health and welfare-which he deducted from their wages) throughout 1969 and most of 1970. Buffa has been a member of GRAMC since February 1969, and has at all times prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in the front window of his station; on August 21, 1970, he formally in writing designated it as his collective-bargaining representative. When Local 705 agent Dicks called for collections at the Buffa Station on November 15, 1970, Buffa indicated he was paying only up to October 31, the expiration date of the "contract." Insisting that the old contract was still in effect, Dicks threatened to "strike and close you out" if Buffa failed to pay up. Thereupon, to avoid trouble, the two employees then present-Buffa's father and Cardo- ne-offered to pay their own dues and Buffa to pay their health-welfare contributions. When Dicks returned in December (1970) with a "new contract" for 3 years which he told Buffa the latter "had to sign," Buffa declined to sign. Dicks thereupon took out a little black book and visibly wrote the word "STRIKE" in it. When Buffa informed Dicks that GRAMC represented him and was negotiating for him, Dicks replied that GRAMC "isn't big enough to fight the Unions" and that the Union had already "shut down" some large Clark Oil Stations. So Buff a signed the "contract." At no time has Buffa paid any employee the wages called for by any of his "contracts" with Local 705, nor has he observed the provisions of those contracts, nor did Dicks ever ask him about it. When Dicks called for collections on April 14, 1971, Buffa refused to pay, informing Dicks that he had filed charges against the Union with the National Labor Relations Board. Dicks demanded to know who had advised Buffa to file charges against the Union, adding "I hate to tell you this, but you're making one of the biggest mistakes in your life." The foregoing testimony of Buffa, which, again, without explanation, was in no way contradicted by Respondent, is credited. It is accordingly found that the allegations of the complaint concerning Vito Buffa, essentially as set forth, have been established by substantial credible evidence. 10. Instance 10: Butler Service Station ( 1725 S. Clark St., Chicago, Ill.) Similar complaint allegations are made concerning the Standard Oil service station at 1725 South Clark Street, Chicago, owned and operated since its opening in April, 1969 by Isaac Butler with six employees (three full- and 3 part-time, all regular) in addition to himself. This station grossed around $235,000 in 1970 (about 75 percent in gasoline sales). In May 1969 Butler was visited at the station by Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri ("Spizzirri") who asked him how many employees he had and who were in the Union. Butler replied five (excluding himself), with two-himself and employee Singleton-in the Union. Although Spizzeri did not claim to represent any employee, and in any event did not represent a majority of employees, he presented the usual preprinted Local 705 contract, which Butler signed. Thereafter Spizzeri visited the Butler station each 3 months throughout 1969 to make "collec- tions," but although Butler's hours were from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. he never saw Spizzeri talk to any employee. Nor did Butler at any time pay any employee the wages called for by the "contract" he had signed with Local 705. At no time in 1969 was more than one station employee (Singleton) and Butler himself, a member of the Union, although the station had six employees exclusive of Butler. In January or February 1970, Butler was visited by "Reverend Jackson, a business agent for Local 705," who asked him how many employees he had and how many were "in" the Union. Butler replied five, with two, himself and Singleton, "in." When Jackson told Butler, at this time, that Butler could not be in the Union but "had to put another man in," Butler "put" employee Clayton in; however, since Singleton was no longer employed there, this left Clayton as the only employee, out of five, "in" the Union. In March or April, Local 705 Representative Gilmore visited the station and asked Butler how many employees he had and how many were in the Union. When Butler replied five and one, Gilmore said, "That's not enough, you have to have at least two men in the union." Accordingly, at Gilmore's suggestion, Butler "rejoined" the Union, thereafter paying "dues" and health and welfare contributions on himself as well as Clayton (the latter being the only mechanic at the station). From 1970-72, mechanic Clayton and Butler himself were the only persons at the station "in" the Union. Butler had become a member of GRAMC on April 29, 1969, and had since then prominently displayed its TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 225 distinctive emblem on the station's front door; on October 18, 1970, in writing he expressly designated GRAMC as his collective-bargaining representative. On November 16, 1970, Butler was presented by Local 705 Representative Gilmore with a new preprinted 3-year contract to sign. Butler refused until "assured everyone else had signed." When Gilmore assured him he (Gilmore) had had "no trouble," Butler asked him pointedly about Vito Partipilo 34 and declined to accept Gilmore's reassurance that there had been "no trouble" with Partipilo, stating that he wished to check personally with the latter. When Gilmore returned a few days later, Butler refused to sign the current (i.e., 1970-73) contract because "no one else had signed." Gilmore thereupon remarked that he had `.only had trouble with one man . . . . And as soon as [I] .... fimsh tying him up .... [I'11] come back to tie [you] up . . . . without any gas [you] couldn't operate .... wouldn't [be] no trucks cross the [picket] line." With this, Gilmore left. At no time did Gilmore claim to or actually represent a majority of Butler's employees; nor was Gilmore ever observed to talk to any employee. As in all of the other instances presented, Respondent saw fit to provide no contradicting or countervailing testimony; indeed, Butler was not even cross-examined. Crediting his testimony, I find that the complaint allega- tions concerning Isaac Butler have been established by substantial credible evidence. 11. Instance 11 : Carter Service Station (7756 W. Madison Street, River Forest, Ill.) Upon like complaint allegations, David Carter testified that he has owned and operated, as year-to-year lessee, the Clark Oil service station at 7756 West Madison Street, River Forest (a suburb of Chicago), Illinois, since May 1969, when he took over from a prior lessee (Earl Miller, whom he never met), joined GRAMC (posting and continuously since then maintaining) its emblem promi- nently in the station window),35 and retained two (one full- time and one part-time) and hired two new (both full-time) employees. The gross revenue of Carter's station in 1970 was about $290,000 (85 percent gasoline, 10 percent cigarettes, balance other merchandise). A little over a month after he took over, on June 19, 1969, Carter was visited at his station by Local 705 Business Agent Dicks, who told him he "had to put [your] employees in the union." When Carter refused, Dicks warned him, "You have to join it or I can't let your employees work." Carter and Dicks thereupon approached Carter's employee Chow and informed him he had to join the Union. Chow refused. Dicks said to Chow, "You have to join or I can't let you work." Chow then assented. Then Carter signed a preprinted Local 705 contract which already bore the signatures of that Union's officials, and thereafter Chow signed a union membership card. Dicks did not ask how many employees there were nor who they were, nor did he state he represented any employee. At this time (as well as throughout 1969) Carter had four (three full-time and one regular part-time) employees, with none a union member when he signed the Local 705 contract. (As stated above, employee Chow signed a union card after Carter had signed the contract.) In July 1969, Dicks informed Carter, "I might need more employees in the union . . . . you got a big station, you are suppose to have four and I will be a nice guy and let you off with two." Thereupon Carter "put" his employee Stark "into" the Union. Carter paid union scale to only the two employees "in" the Union. In 1970, Carter's employee complement averaged six (two full- and four part-time) employees, with never over two "in" the Union. Although Dicks visited each 3 months to make collections of moneys (dues and also health and welfare contributions) for the Union, he never asked how many employees there were nor was he seen to talk to any employee (except, as above described, with employee Chow on his initial visit). On November 18, 1970, Local 705 Business Representa- tive Dicks presented a new 3-year contract to Carter for signature. Carter declined to sign it, upon the expressly stated ground that GRAMC was negotiating on that subject for him. Dicks said, "I will leave it here and you can sign it." Dicks returned on the following day for the signed contract. When Carter informed him he had not signed it because he had not yet heard from GRAMC (his bargaining representative), Dicks threatened him with the same treatment accorded to another neighborhood dealer who had failed to sign up. When Carter continued to decline to sign unless another GRAMC dealer did, Dicks replied that the Union did not recognize GRAMC as a bargaining agent and insisted that Carter sign up, under threat that "If you don't sign the contract, I am going to close you up .... picket [your] station." Carter neverthe- less continued to refuse to sign, and the following day reported the foregoing not only to GRAMC but to a National Labor Relations Board agent . Later that day, Dicks returned to the Carter station and warned him, "It's going to be your last chance." When Carter persisted in refusing to sign up, stating as his reason that he had not yet heard from GRAMC, Dicks handed him an IGD36 pamphlet and urged him to affiliate with that "organiza- tion" instead of GRAMC. When Carter declined to do so, Dicks threatened, "We are going to beat you . . . . we will get you to sign a contract and when you do, I am going to make it rough. I am going to make you put four men in and not just two." Dicks returned to the station again on November 23, 1970, calling out to Carter from a rolled- down car window, "This is the last chance, you going to sign this contract or not?" When Carter again declined, Dicks sped off. At this time, Carter had six employees, with only two (Chow and Glass, the latter a part-time employee working only about 8 hours per week) "in" the Union. At no time did Dicks ask how many employees Carter had, nor claim he represented any, nor offer to discuss any contract provision. As in the case of all other station owners, Respondent 34 1 e , instances 58-59, infra 35 Carter executed an express bargaining authorization to GRAMC on September 9, 1970 36 See fns . 29 and 30, supra 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD without explanation failed to produce any controverting witness 37 Upon the record as a whole, including evalua- tion of testimonial demeanor,38 I credit Carter's described testimony and find that the complaint allegations concern- ing David Carter have essentially been established by substantial credible evidence. 12. Instance 12: Cataldo Service Station (851 S. Elm- hurst Rd., Des Plaines, Ill.) The complaint contains similar allegations concerning the Clark Oil service station of Michael Cataldo at 851 South Elmhurst Road, Des Plaines, Illinois. Regarding this, it is alleged that on or prior to January 1, 1971, Cataldo had joined and/or designated GRAMC as his bargaining representative; and that in January-February 1971, Local 705 demanded that Cataldo execute an agreement recog- nizing Local 705 as the exclusive bargaining representative of his employees although it did not represent a majority of them, and coerced Cataldo into signing the agreement by threatening to cut off his gasoline supplies. As all other station owners, Cataldo testified without contradiction. He swore that he owned and operated the station in question from December 31, 1970, to March 13, 1972. At the time he took the station over from another dealer (December 31, 1970), in partnership with Chuck Scott, he took over only one employee (Van Diggelen), and had a total of six (three full- and three part-time) employees exclusive of himself and Scott. He joined GRAMC, authorizing it to bargain for him, on January 6, 1971, since which date he has remained a member and prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his station window. In 1971, the station had a gross business of $272,000, 90 percent of which was gasoline sales. In late January or early February 1971, Cataldo was visited at the station by Local 705 Business Agent Tony Lapiana, who announced he was "going to unionize the station" and asked how many employees he had. Cataldo replied five full-time (he also had three part-time). When Lapiana mentioned the wage rates, Cataldo said he "wasn't interested." Thereafter Lapiana spoke to the station employees (including Van Diggelen, a part-timer) about the Union, indicating it was up to them. The employees stated they were not interested; one or more threatened to quit rather than join. About 2 or 3 weeks later Lapiana returned, with the same objective and the same result. Displaying his checkbook for Lapiana to see, Cataldo said, "All you're trying to do is legally extort money out of me here," and asked Lapiana to leave. Lapiana demanded that all five employees be put into the Union and threatened to picket the station. In early February 1971, Lapiana again returned, this time displaying to Cataldo a preprinted Local 705 contract, which he demanded that Cataldo sign. Cataldo refused. 31 In Carter's case, as well as a few others, during cross-examination Carter refused upon constitutional grounds to answer questions as to whether he had deducted Union dues from has employees' wages. Sustaining the constitutional plea, for reasons explicated by me at length in the record in connection with the testimony of General Counsel witness, Wmtercorn (instance 80, infra ), I denied Respondent' s motion to strike out all of Carter's testimony. 38 Consideration has also been given to the contents of Carter's pretrial Lapiana threatened, "We're going to picket your place and be out here with our attorney and the rest of the boys." Cataldo ordered him off the premises . About a week later, Local 705 Representative John Parise visited Cataldo, explaining that he wanted to "help you out" by limiting the number of employees to be placed into the Union to three instead of five. When Parise instructed Cataldo to mail in payments to the Union, Cataldo indicated that the Union would have to find them if they wanted them. A week later Parise returned, informing Cataldo that the Union was about to picket a nearby station and "shut the gasoline off and put that man out of business so I advise you to sign [the contract ]" and he (Parise) would be willing to "settle for two men" of Cataldo in the Union . This time Cataldo signed the contract, without discussing or reading it, and subsequently mailed the Union a check for $64 for initiation fees and dues for Scott (Cataldo's 50-percent partner in the station) and part-time employee Van Diggelen. At the time Cataldo signed the contract there were-exclusive of himself and Scott-six employees (three full- and three regular part-time) at the station . At no time had or did Lapiana or Parise display any signed union card or claim to represent any employee. (However, one or the other left something for employees to sign, which they never did.) Crediting the foregoing testimony,39 which, as stated, was uncontradicted by any other testimony , Respondent again having failed-without any explanation-to produce any witness to controvert it in any way, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Michael Cataldo have been established by substantial credible evidence. 13. Instance 13: Coghill Service Station (5836 S. Harlem ;Ave., Summit, IIll.) Upon similar complaint allegations, James Coghill (also known as James Bryant Coghill) testified that he has been the owner-operator of the Clark Oil service station at 5836 South Harlem Avenue, Summit (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, under a year-to-year lease since July 1960. He had formerly been the manager of that station for the Clark Company itself, which had had seven employees (including Coghill) there, of whom Coghill retained only two (Chapman and Watson), who remained only about 3 years, i.e., to about 1963) and hired four (two full- and two part- time) additional employees . As required by this (and other) Clark lease, the station is open and operated around the clock. Coghill has been a member of GRAMC since May 1961; has displayed its distinctive emblem prominently since at least around 1968; and on August 5, 1970, executed to it an express bargaining authorization designa- tion.40 The gross revenue of Coghill's station in 1970 was approximately $380,000, 75-80 percent from gasoline sales. In September 1967 Coghill was visited by Local 705 Business Agent James Hall and a colleague, and signed a statement and his credited and undisputed description of the circumstances under which it was supplied in the course of waiting upon customers at the station. 39 In so doing, consideration has been given to Cataldo's pretrial statement. 40 Coghill conceded on cross-examination that he never, expressing orally, told Hall of this authorization. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 union contract. In March 1968-when Coghill had seven or eight (four full-time and the balance regular part-time) employees, Local 705 Business Agent Hall presented Coghill with a new contract for signature. When Coghill asked how it differed from the previous contract, Hall informed him that it called for more pay as well as health and welfare contributions. Hall added that if Coghill signed, two employees "in" the Union-would continue to be sufficient even though there should be more. So Coghill signed. At this time, Coghill had seven or eight (four full- time and the balance regular part-time ) employees, with only two (Traylor and Keeble) "in" the Union. At no time did Hall ask how many employees Coghill had, nor did Hall say any employee was a member of the Union, nor that he represented any employee, nor did he discuss any proposed contract provision, nor (with a single exception, later, in 1970), was he at any time seen talking to any employee. However, after Coghill signed the "contract," Hall called at the station about monthly for collections. At various tunes during these occasions, from 1968-70, Hall told Coghill that he was aware that there were more employees working at the station than were in the Union, but that Coghill should advise them that if they were asked by other union representatives whether they were in the Union to have them say they had just been hired, and that Coghill should notify Hall of any such episode. In March 1970 Hall pointed out to Coghill that he had only one employee in the Union and that since Coghill would "have to give him another one" suggested to him, "Why don't you put yourself in and take advantage of the health and welfare?" Coghill complied (G.C. Exh. 285). In mid-November 1970, Hall presented a new 3-year contract to Coghill for signature. When Coghill said he wished to take it home to read over , Hall refused to allow this. Accordingly, Coghill looked it over then and there; when he saw the wages and health and welfare contri- butions stipulated therein, he told Hall that"There is no way I could live with the contract and why should I sign something I could not live with, live up to?" Hall reminded him that the Union had never insisted on contract observance and that he could continue with only two (including himself as one of the two) "in" the Union. In answer to a question by Coghill, Hall warned that he would be picketed and have his gasoline deliveries cut off if he did not sign the "contract," showing him picket signs in the trunk of his (Hall's) car and pointing out "Those are made up for the guys that don't sign the contracts... " So Coghill again signed up. At this time (as well as from April 1970 to date) Coghill had seven or eight (five full- and the rest regular part-time) employees, excluding himself, with only one (Traylor), plus himself, "in" the Union. That Union Business Agent Hall was well aware of this is established not only by Coghill's uncontradicted testimony but is attested by Hall's written reports to that effect in his own handwriting (G.C. Exhs. 281 and 282). At no time did Hall even claim that the Union represented a majority of Coghill's employees, nor did Hall ever offer to negotiate any contract provision. Between April and July 1971, Coghill withdrew from union "membership." His remittance form covering union health and welfare contributions for that period lists 227 employee Traylor only and is in Local 705 Business Agent Hall's handwriting. Coghill was visited at his station in April 1972 by Hall, who told him, "I understand that you have signed a statement against [me and Local 705 ... with the NLRB]. I have ways of finding out . . . . [Another] man had withdrawn [his] statement and .... would [you ] consider withdrawing [yours]?" Coghill declined to do so. Upon the basis of James Coghill's foregoing totally uncontradicted testimony, which I credit, I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been estab- lished by substantial credible evidence. 14. Instance 14:' Conway Service Station 1(6704 IRoosevelt^Rd., Oak Park, Ill.), On similar allegations, General Counsel witness Gary Brian Conway testified that he has been the owner- operator of the Clark Oil service station at 6704 Roosevelt Road, Oak Park, Illinois, on a round-the-clock basis since October 17, 1968, prior to which he had been manager of that station for Clark Oil Company. When Conway took the station over, he retained or rehired only one employee (Mustain or Lestain), at a lower wage. The gross revenues of Conway's station in 1970 were $494,000 (65 percent gasoline and 30 percent cigarette sales). Within 2 weeks after taking the station over, on October 29, 1968, Conway was visited by Local 705 Business Agent Edward Miller in the company of Miller's colleague described as around 6' 4" in height and weighing about 300 pounds, with a "very raspy voice-it sounded like he was talking from-in his shoes." Miller announced to Conway, "This [is] a union station" and demanded that Conway sign a Local 705 "contract" which he presented to Conway. When Conway asked his employee Mustain (Lestain), "Joe, you want to join the union," Mustain said, "No." Thereupon Miller's husky companion remarked in his "raspy voice," "I didn't ask you if you wanted to join the union, I said you have to join the union if you want to work here." So Mustain "joined." Conway explained that he had just opened the station and could not afford to contribute to the Union. Miller reassured him that he would "take it easy on [you] .... but later on [you will ] have to put two men in the union." Under these circumstances, Conway signed the preprinted Local 705 contract presented to him. At that time, Conway had five (three full- and 2 regular part-time) employees. At no time did Miller or his companion claim the Union represented a majority nor indeed any employee, nor that any employee (other than Mustain, who "joined" as has been described, when the "contract" was signed) belonged to the Union, nor did they inquire as to how many employees Conway had. During the described episode, Conway had informed Miller that he (Conway) was a member of GRAMC. When Miller returned to the station in the first week of November (1968), Conway paid him the required union initiation fee, membership dues, and health and welfare contributions for Mustain. (At this time, Conway had five regular employees.) He later deducted from Mustain's salary the union initiation fee and dues. It is to be noted, however, that although Conway continued to pay Local 705 health and welfare contributions on Mustain in 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD December 1968, Mustain was already gone from his employ on that date, as shown by a union receipt in Business Agent Miller's own handwriting (G.C. Exh. 43). From 1968 through at least part of 1971, Miller visited the Conway station about monthly for collections. During this period, Conway had from seven to nine (three to four full- and three to five regular part-time) employees, but never over two "in" the Union. When Miller visited the station in November 1971 he presented a new, preprinted 3-year Local 705 contract to Conway for signature, informing him, "I have your new contract for you." When Conway indicated he wished to look it over, Miller told him, "What [is] to look at? . . . it's the only contract." To Conway's reminder that his bargaining agent was GRAMC, Miller responded that this was the contract and that Conway "had to sign it" or Miller would "close the station up and turn it into a parking lot." At this time, Conway had eight or nine (four full- and four or five regular part-time) employees, with only one (Curran) "in" the Union. About a week later, Miller returned to have the contract signed; when told by Conway that he couldn't afford it and wanted to await action by GRAMC, Miller warned him, "You are not going to beat us . . . you don't have enough money to beat us .... things will go rougher if [you] don't sign right away." When Miller returned in mid-January 1971, he told Conway, "I want you to sign this contract because I can't be responsible for what happens here after this . . . . after today." When Conway said he was not ready and would take his chances, Miller threatened to throw a picket line up and stop gasoline deliveries to the station. Returning again later in January or early February (1971), Miller warned that "We just struck Martin [Service Stations] and got all of them all signed and . . . . Clark is next." Conway signed the Local 705 preprinted "contract" the next day. At that time, Conway had seven or eight (half full- and half part-time, all regular) employees, with only one (Curran) "in" the Union. At no time had Miller asked how many employees Conway had, nor had Miller ever indicated he represented a majority or indeed any of them. Crediting the foregoing uncontradicted testimony of Gary B. Conway (also known as Gary Brian Conway), I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 15. Instance 15: Cook Service Station (3943 E. 106th St., Chicago, Ill.) Again on like allegations in the complaint, Clark Oil products dealer George Cook testified that he has been its dealer-lessee-owner at 3943 East 106th Street, Chicago, since June 29, 1969, when he took over the station from its former owner (John Perry, Jr.), retaining all employees there. Promptly thereafter, on July 11, 1969, Cook was visited by Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri, who informed him that he would "have to sign the contract" and pay dues on all men in the Union. Cook signed up and paid $36 dues 18 for each of two employees (John Perry, Sr. and Marty [Mario] O'Lashety,41 who Spizzeri (as well as the former dealer) said belonged ; 42 at this time, Cook had seven (four full- and three part-time employees, and Spizzeri made no claim that he represented a majority. Returning in October 1969, Spizzeri told Cook, "I need an application for John Perry, Sr. [and] initiation fee." Cook complied, paying $25 initiation fee and dues as well. Each 3 months from 1969-71, Spizzeri called at the station for the sole purpose of making collections from Cook of union dues and health and welfare contributions. Although on those visits Spizzeri also invariably asked Cook whether he was going to "put" more men into the Union, Cook said he would let him know when he wanted to "put" another man in the Union, but at no time did Cook have over two employees "in" the Union. At times, Union Business Agent Jackson also visited the station. Around Christmas 1970, Spizzeri brought with him a new Local 705 contract and told Cook to "sign it." When Cook said he "wasn't going to pay any one $3.45 an hour to run a driveway," Spizzeri threatened to "put picket up" if Cook did not sign up, and that the Union was going to picket the neighboring CITGO station. Cook replied that he would sign up when he saw the pickets at the CITGO station. In January and February 1971, Spizzeri returned on several occasions, each time demanding that Cook sign the new contract but each time meeting with a refusal by Cook to do so. When, in February, Spizzeri warned Cook that "Louis Pieck" (i.e., Spizzeri's boss, Louis Peick, secretary-treasurer of Local 705) was "getting hot," Cook signed up. At no time was any provision of the "contract" negotiated and at no time has Cookpaid the wage scale called for by the "contract." At this time, Cook had 7 to 10 (two full- and the rest mostly regular part-time) employees, with then (and since March 1970 and to date) only one "in" the Union. Neither Spizzeri nor Jackson asked him how many employees he had, nor how many union members nor indicated a majority were such. Cook had become a member of GRAMC in December 1969, since which time its distinctive emblem has promi- nently been displayed on his station window or main door; and on August 5, 1970, he additionally executed to it an express bargaining authorization designation. In 1970, the Cook station had gross revenues of $360,000 (around 75 percent for gasoline and 15 percent for cigarette sales). Upon the foregoing uncontradicted and credited testi- mony of George Cook, I find that the complaint allega- tions relating to him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 16. Instance 16: Crespo Service Station (1721 S. Paulina St., Chicago, Ill.) Substantially similar allegations are made concerning the Clark Oil service station at 1721 South Paulina Street, Chicago, which was opened and has been owned and operated by Luis Crespo since November 1969. In early 1970, Crespo was visited by Local 705 Business Agent George White, who asked him how many employees 41 O'Lashety remained as an employee for less than 2 months. 42 Cook deducted dues out of these employees' wages TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 229 he had. Crespo told him he had seven. White said he "needed at least four men in the union because the boss was on [my] ass." Crespo pointed out that he had just opened the station. White said, "I will give you a chance," and returned about 3 weeks later, this time informing Crespo that "I need more men in the union to keep the boss happy . . . I need one man." Crespo thereupon referred his employee Sanchez to White, and Crespo signed Local 705's preprinted 3-year contract (1967-70). At this time, Crespo had seven (four full- and three regular part- time) employees, excluding himself. White did not even claim to represent any employee. From then on, Crespo began paying to Local 705 dues on Sanchez, who quit his employ in March (1970), about a week after he joined Local 705 under the described circumstances. Crespo informed White-who had come in to collect money-that Sanchez was leaving and that he (Crespo) intended to place his (Crespo's) father "in" in place of Sanchez. (Crespo's father was the recipient of a weekly stipend regardless of whether or when he worked.) White said, "It don't make no difference as long as I have somebody else in there." In September 1970 White presented a form to Crespo for signature deauthorizing GRAMC-which Crespo had on August 24 designated as his bargaining representative-to act on his behalf. Crespo refused. White warned, "[You] will be sorry if [you] didn't sign it . . . later on-you know-[you are] going to be sorry." Pointing to the IGDA43 as well as GRAMC emblem on the station window, White said the IGDA "guys are all right ... . good guys," but that the GRAMC "are no good, a bunch of a-holes." On November 18, 1970 White presented to Crespo a "new contract to sign." When Crespo refused, White threatened, "You got to" and that "All you guys are a bunch of fools, all you guys that don't sign the contract. We are going to stop the gas delivery. We are going to close your station. We are going to strike it." Demanding that Crespo sign the "new contract," White made no attempt to explain or in any way to discuss it, nor did he claim to represent Crespo's employees. At this time, although Crespo had seven (four full- and three regular part-time) employees, only one- Crespo's father, as described above- -was "m" the Union. This station's gross receipts in 1970 were $351,000, of which 70 percent consisted of gasoline sales. As in the case of all other testifying dealers, no countervailing testimony whatsoever was adduced by Respondent. Thus, Crespo's testimony stands undisputed. Crediting his testimony, I find that the complaint allega- tions concerning Luis Crespo have been established by substantial credible evidence. 17. Instance 17: Doskal Service Station (9618 N. Milwaukee Ave., Niles, Ill.) On similar complaint allegations, Jordan Doskal's (Daskal's) uncontradicted testimony establishes that he has operated the Clark Oil service station at 9618 North Milwaukee Avenue, Niles (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, since October 1970, at which time he hired an entirely new crew and around which time he joined GRAMC, display- ing its emblem prominently in plain view on the station's front door. Around the last week of November (1970), Local 705 Business Agent Tony Lapiana visited Doskal's station and advised him, "Join the Union . . . Most of the Clark dealers [are] members." When Doskal asked Lapiana, "What benefits there would be to me," Lapiana replied, "None, that the Union was there to represent [your] employees." When Doskal inquired what if he didn't, Lapiana pointed out that his station "might be picketed" and that he would not receive deliveries of gasoline. Doskal said he couldn't afford the Union, and, in response to Lapiana's question, Doskal told him he had only two full-time employees-including himself as one (although he may not have mentioned this to Lapiana). Lapiana said, "[I will] only charge [you] for one employee in order to cut the cost down." Thereupon Doskal signed the preprinted contract presented to him. Lapiana did not claim to represent any employee, and nobody working at the Doskal station belonged to or had signed any union card. At this time, Doskal had-excluding himself-five (one full- and four regular part-time) employees. Lapiana left no union card for any employee to sign, and to Doskal's knowledge his full-time employee (John Brotan) never became a member of the Union. February 1971 was the first and only time that any of Doskal's employees became a member of the Union. At this time his employee Andrew Pope signed a card. Respondent has stipulated that Pope's card is the only record in its possession of any employee of Doskal as a union member. Doskal's employee complement remained around five (one full- and four regular part- time), exclud- ing Doskal himself. Although Doskal informed Lapiana on the latter's monthly visits that the station was running in the red and he could not afford to pay, Lapiana returned to collect health and welfare contributions, which Doskal paid on Pope (only). At no time did Doskal-whose station grossed $187,000 (around 75 percent gasoline sales) in 1971-pay union scale or observe other provisions of the "collective agreement" he had signed with Local 705 under the circumstances described. Crediting Jordan Doskal's uncontroverted testimony, I find that the complaint allegations pertaining to him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 18. Instance 18: Dietzler Service Station (161 S. Harlem, Forest Park, Ill.) In the case of the two Dietzler service stations, the complaint (par. XVII ) allegations are somewhat different. In this case it is alleged in substance that although Respondent was the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in each of those stations, Respondent refused to recognize or deal with GRAMC as the known bargaining agent for one of those stations ("Whitehall"); Respondent failed and refused to bargain with the Dietzlers individually regarding their other station ("Per- fection") or regarding "Whitehall"; Respondent had no intention of engaging in good-faith bargaining ; Respon- 43 Crespo had made only a single payment to IGDA 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dent, through its agent John Parise, threatened to picket and stop deliveries of gasoline and other merchandise to the Dietzler service stations unless they signed Respon- dent's proffered (preprinted) agreement; and the Dietzler service stations were thereby coerced into signing those agreements without opportunity to bargain and in order to avoid shutdown of their operations through Respondent's threat to prevent gasoline and other merchandise deliver- ies. General Counsel witness Michael Dietzler testified that he and his father (Gordon Dietzler) as principals own and operate two leased service stations; namely,(1) a Mobil station at 161 South Harlem, Forest Park (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, under the name of Whitehall Super Service, Inc., doing business as Whitehall Car Wash, Inc. ("Whitehall" herein), an automatic car wash, gasoline sales, and service center, and (2) a Standard station at 7405 West Roosevelt Road, Forest Park, under the name of Perfection Automobile Laundry, Inc. ("Perfection" her- ein), an automatic car wash and gasoline station. The only difference between the two stations, which are about 3 miles apart, is that at Whitehall (only) repairs are also done. Both companies were incorporated around 1969, with father and son each a 50-percent owner, following their equal partnership at Whitehall from 1957 to 1969. From 1957 to 1966 they had collective agreements with Local 705; car washers were first included in 1967. For purposes of the instant proceeding it is immaterial whether, and it will be assumed that, as provided in the collective agreement and as alleged in the complaint, the car washers are properly included as members of the appropriate bargaining units at Whitehall and at Perfection. Michael Dietzler is president of Perfection and vice- president of Whitehall; Gordon Dietzler is president of Whitehall and vice-president of Perfection. Getler is vice president and secretary of Whitehall. Gross revenues for 1970-71 of Whitehall were $480,000 (about 50 percent gasoline sales) and of Perfection were $320,000 (70 percent gasoline sales). Each is an Illinois corporation. For practical purposes, the Whitehall location has at all times been and is the operational headquarters for the entire enterprise, it being clear that the two stations have at all times been commonly owned and centrally controlled and operated, with a common labor relations policy (including employee transferability from station to station as neces- sary or appropriate); and I find that both stations have at all material times constituted a single employer for jurisdictional and other purposes. The manager at White- hall is Getler (Guetler); at Perfection, Evans (formerly a serviceman at Whitehall). Neither has power to hire or fire. In 1966, three cars entered Whitehall and four men out of one car announced, "[We are] from Local 705 and [are] going to unionize the car washers," stopped the operations, and notified the employees they would have to join the Union if they wanted to work. Under these circumstances all signed up, and Michael Dietzler paid initiation fees and dues on them. Since the existing contract with Local 705 did not cover car washers, subsequently a rider was executed including them. The 1967-70 collective agree- ments, including therein car washers, were merely present- ed by Local 705 Business Representative Parisi (Parise) and signed without any negotiations. The provisions of the 1967 and 1970 collective agreements between the Dietzler stations and Local 705 have been observed by the employer, except that at Whitehall-with the knowledge of Local 705-Blue Cross is maintained instead of health- welfare payments to Local 705. The majority of the employees at each station (in 1970 the total regular complement at Whitehall was 12-15, and at Perfection 7-10) have been union members within 30 days of being hired. From 1969 to date, the employer has paid all union dues on all employees at both locations, to Parisi as collector. Although Perfection has not been a member of GRAMC, Whitehall has belonged since the 1950's and has since at least 1969 prominently displayed its distinctive emblem and on September 18, 1970, executed to it a formal bargaining representation designation. In October 1970, Parisi presented a form for Michael Dietzler's signature at Whitehall, deauthorizing GRAMC as bargaining repre- sentative. Dietzler refused to sign it. When, also that month (October 1970), Parisi visited Whitehall for collections, Michael Dietzler told him that he would not pay or sign a new contract without GRAMC. Parisi thereupon informed Dietzler that Local 705 "[does not] recognize the GRAMC as a bargaining agent to do the bargaining for [you]." When Parisi suggested or mentioned an "[Automatic] Car Wash Association," Dietzler said he did not belong to it and inquired if he could bargain individually. Parisi said, "No, we don't do things that way." Dietzler then stated he was going to meet with GRAMC and would let Parisi know the outcome. Parisi thereupon remarked that it would make no difference, that Local 705 did not recognize GRAMC, and that Dietzler's station would be picketed and his gasoline deliveries cut off.44 Thereafter, Dietzler made it clear to Parisi that he would sign the 1970-73 contracts with Local 705 only because Parisi "had me over a barrel" and he (Dietzler) had been advised (by GRAMC attorney Porcelli) that gasoline deliveries could not be guaranteed otherwise. Dietzler therefore signed both 1970-73 contracts, one for each station, under these circumstances. The preprinted Local 705 contracts bear rubber-stamped facsimile signatures of the union officials. As in the case of every other dealer who testified in this proceeding, Dietzler's testimony is wholly uncontradicted by any countervailing testimony, Respondent without explanation not producing any witness. Crediting Michael Dietzler's described testimony, I find that the allegations concerning the Dietzler service stations, essentially as set forth in the complaint, have been established by substan- tial credible evidence. 19. Instance 19: Dominici Service Station (5300 S. LaGrange Road, La Grange, Ill.) The complaint allegations concerning the Dominici service station at 5300 South LaGrange Road, LaGrange 44 In connection with the foregoing , it is noted that although GRAMC with each of those enterprises and had also been serving as collector for each. represented only the Whitehall and not the Perfection operation , Parisi had Pansi's1 refusal^ to negotiate with Dietzler individually at all-with regard to presented and procured the employer's signature on the Local 705 contracts either Perfection or Whitehall-wiU be recalled. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 231 (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, are again substantially the same as those previously dealt with herein, prior to those pertaining to Dietzler. In support of those allegations, General Counsel witness Anthony Dominici testified that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil Service Station at the foregoing address for over 5 years, on a year-to-year lease ; and that he has been a member of GRAMC since 1967, at all times displaying its distinctive emblem, and on October 14, 1970, signing an express bargaining authorization designation to it. The station's gross revenues in 1970 were approximately $570,000 (65-70 percent gasoline sales). When Dominici took the station over from the previous owner (John Lafave), he retained the existing employees, two of whom were union members under a union contract. In early 1967 he was visited by union representative Adams, who told him, "As long as you give me three men, everything will be okay and there will be no trouble." Adams did not claim to represent a majority of employees nor did he inquire as to how many employees there were. Although Dominici told Adams he had only two employees in addition to himself, in fact Dominici then had five to seven (three full- and the rest regular part-time) employees. In March 1968, Dominici was visited by union represent- ative Ray ("Red") Kolb, who presented a preprinted contract and told Dominici that there were "not much changes; dust give us three men and everything will remain the same." Kolb neither showed any authorization to negotiate on behalf of any of the employees nor did he claim to represent a majority. At this time (as well as generally from 1968-70), Dominici had eight or nine (four or five full- and the rest regular part-time) employees in addition to himself, with only two employees (Kenny and Jerry Hansen) -as well as Dominici himself-in the Union. Although Kolb called regularly thereafter, around every 2 months, to collect dues and health-welfare payments, he was never observed talking to any employee. During his mid-October 1970 visit to the station, Local 705 Representative Kolb told Dominici, concerning the upcoming new (1970-73) contract, "Don't worry about it You and I always got along . . . . you are not like those f-ing buddies of yours . . . they are getting tough with the wrong person . . . we can get tough, too . . . . if they keep giving us trouble, we will hit them and close them up." At around the same time, Dominici was warned also by Local 705 Business Representative Peter Alex, "All the trouble makers we will get," that GRAMC (pointing to its emblem in Dominici's window) was a "bunch of f-ing trouble makers" and that a better outfit was IGDA; 45 that "trouble don't worry me" and that "once we organize we are going to hit all the trouble makers and picket them." A few days later, Dominici was visited by IGDA representa- tive Gentile, who-displaying a photograph of himself with Local 705 representative Alex-told him that he (Gentile) had been informed by Alex that Domimci was ready to sign up; that GRAMC consisted of "just a bunch of trouble makers"; that Dominici should join IGDA; and that Dominici should not fight Local 705 but go after "the company" (i.e., Clark Oil Company). In November (1970), when Kolb presented the new contract to Dominici for signature and Dominici told him he wanted to "wait awhile," Kolb insisted he sign it then and there, remarking to Dominici, "You are going to turn out just like your f-ing buddies" and warning him, "If you don't sign the contract now, we will throw up a picket and close you up." When Dominici persisted in indicating he wished to wait awhile, Kolb stated that in that case there would be "no more favoritism . . . you'd have to put all your men in the union . . . I don't give a f-k how long they work, I want them all in the union . . . . what do you want to cause trouble now for. You and I have always been getting along .... If [you] sign it now, everything will remain the same." So Dominici signed up. At no time had Kolb indicated how many employees were in the Union, nor that he represented any; nor was any contract provision in any way negotiated; nor did Dominici observe the pay scale or other contract requirements (nor did Kolb ever inquire). At the time (November 1970) he signed this preprinted Local 705 contract (1970-73), Dominici had seven to nine (three to four full- and the balance regular part-time) employees, excluding himself; and although only one employee (Showalter), as well as Dominici himself, was "in" the Union, Dominici was making payment of "health and welfare" contributions to Local 705 on two employees (not merely on Showalter, but also purportedly on Freely, who had not been working at the station since August) as well as on himself. After Dominici signed the 1970-73 contract, Local 705 Business Representative Kolb continued calling at the station to make collections. During such a visit in late May or in June 1971, Dominici told Kolb that he was "tired of living in fear [and] . . . . tired of your threats . . . about picketing and closing me up" and that he was "going to drop out of the union [and] . . . I am not going to pay." Kolb replied that in that case there would be "no more favors and we will picket your station and close you up." On this occasion, nevertheless, Dominici refused to pay and ordered Kolb out of the station. In July or early August (1971) Kolb returned, stated to Dominici that GRAMC had "lost," and informed Dominici that if he would "pay up the union dues that all will be forgotten and everything will remain the same, that [I ] won't enforce the contract and we will start getting along again." But Dominici refused to pay. Kolb then said that he "will have to picket." Dominici has not seen Kolb since.46 Again, as in all other cases, Respondent Local 705 without explanation presented no witness to contradict the testimony of Dominici in any way. Crediting that testimo- ny, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Anthony Dominici have been established by substantial credible evidence. 20. Instance 20: Domin & Ellison Service Station (4756 W. Armitage Rd., Chicago, Ill.) On like allegations, the uncontradicted testimony of General Counsel witness Andrew Ellison establishes that with his 50-50 partner, Edward Domin, he has owned and 46 See fns. 29 and 30, supra. 46 The original charge in the instant proceeding was filed in November, 1970, and the complaint issued in December 1971. 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operated, under a year-to-year self-renewing lease, the ARCO service station at 4756 West Armitage Road, Chicago, since July 1, 1967. When Ellison and Domin opened this, a new station, they took with them their five (three full- and two part-time) employees, none known to be a Local 705 member, from a previous location. Mechanical work at the station is done by Ellison and Domin only. The gross volume of the new station's business in 1970 was $211,000 (80 percent in gasoline sales). On opening the station, in July 1967, Ellison was visited by Local 705 Business Agent "Danny" Ligurotus (in the company of another individual), who stated he had come to collect union dues for Domin (Ellison's partner). Ellison told him he would have to collect from Domin. In early 1968 Ligurotus and his associate returned, this time proffering a Local 705 "contract" for Ellison to "sign." Ligurotus and his companion did not claim to represent any employee. Ellison declined to sign. In March (1968), Ligurotus and his associate again returned. This time, after another turndown by Ellison but a stormy private session between the Local 705 agents and Domin, with Ligurotus threatening that "If one [of you doesn't] sign the contract, [we will] picket the station and probably stop the gas deliveries," the Local 705 agents were ordered to "get the hell out" of the station. When they once again returned around the end of March (1968), once more to be met with a turndown by Ellison, Domin signed the contract. At this time, the station had five (three full- and two regular part- time) employees, exclusive of Ellison and Domin, with no employee but only half-owner Domin a member of the Union. Ligurotus and his associate did not ask how many employees there were nor even claim to represent any employee. From 1968 to 1971, Ligurotus visited the station regularly, only for the purpose of making collections. At no time was he observed talking to any employee. During this period the station's complement of employees continued to be five, with none in the Union; only half-owner, Domin, was "in" the Union, with dues and health and welfare contributions paid on him alone. The Ellison-Domin service station had been a member of GRAMC since December 17, 1968, with its distinctive emblem prominently displayed at all times since then; and on September 16, 1970, additionally a formal bargaining authorization designation was executed to GRAMC. Around November 1970, Ligurotus presented to Ellison a new (1970-73) Local 705 contract for signature. Ellison refused to sign, indicating that GRAMC would do the bargaining for the station. This scene was replay-_ and repeated in December (1970) and January (1971). On the latter occasion, when Ligurotus indicated that there should be "put another member in the Union," Ellison said his partner (Domin) was enough, but Ellison signed the contract on Ligurotus' insistence that Domin's signature would not be valid since he (Domin) was a union member. After Ellison signed up, Ligurotus dropped his demand to "put another member in the Union." At this time, there continued to be five employees at the station, as previous- Iv, with none in the Union. Again, as at all times, Ligurotus did not ask how many employees there were, nor claim to represent any employee, nor offer to negotiate any contract provision. At no time has this station observed or applied any term of its "contracts" with Local 705. Ellison is unaware of whether his employees' wages meet the Union scale; he has simply ignored and not even bothered to read the "contract." At no time has any employee been told about any "contract." Nor has Ligurotus at any time inquired as to whether the "contract" was being observed. Upon the foregoing credited and uncontradicted testi- mony of Andrew Ellison, I find that the complaint allegations concerning his service station have been established by substantial credible evidence. 21. Instance 21: Duck Service Station (3552 W. North Avenue, Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness, Billy Duck, testified that he owned and operated the Martin Oil service station at 3552 West North Avenue, Chicago, from March 25, 1970, to November 8, 1971. Prior to taking the station over, Duck had managed it for 3 years and was a member of the Union. The previous owner had had a contract with the Union47 Around March 1, 1970-while Duck was still manager of the station under its previous owner-Local 705 Business Agent "Danny" Ligurotus visited the station to "see how many employees were in the Union." This was Duck's first experience with Ligurotus. Duck displayed the station payroll sheet, which Ligurotus compared with a black notebook he had in his possession. At this time, there were approximately 12 (8 full- and 4 part-time) employees, including Duck , at the station. Around April 1, 1970, right after Duck took over ownership and operation of the station, keeping all former employees, he was visited by Ligurotus, who asked him if he intended to pay Union wages. Duck said he would (and he has). Ligurotus said that if Duck signed a contract with Local 705 he would "let me off with five men . . . . let me out with just five men in the Union." At this time, excluding himself Duck had 12 (7 full- and 4 regular part- time) employees, including two assistant managers. Duck did not sign any agreement with Local 705. At or about the same time (April 1970) Duck became a member of GRAMC, and has since then continued to belong and prominently to display its distinctive emblem, and has additionally expressly authorized it to bargain on his behalf. When Ligurotus revisited Duck around the end of June (1970), Duck informed him that he had become a member of GRAMC and asked for a withdrawal of his personal union membership in view of his ownership of the station, but Ligurotus did not accede to this, stating that "managers has always been in the Union." Ligurotus returned to see Duck around mid-July (1970) and told him he would "let [you] off with no more than five men in the union" if Duck signed a preprinted Local 705 contract which Ligurotus proffered . Duck thereupon 47 See fa. 23, supra TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 233 signed it. At this time, Duck had in his employ, aside from himself, 12 (8 full- and 4 regular part-time) employees48; and a total of five persons (including owner Duck himself and two supervising assistant managers , Richard Duck and Jim Monroe), but of these only three rank-and-file employees, were in the Union. In November 1970, Ligurotus presented a new 3-year (i.e., 1970-73) Local 705 contract for Duck to sign, again stating that he "would let [you] off with five men and no more than five men if [you] would sign the contract," but at the same time threatening that "if [you ] didn't sign the contract [I] would close [you] down." Under these circumstances, Duck again signed the contract. Although, at this time, Duck continued to have 12 (8 full- and 4 part- time) employees, excluding himself and two supervising assistant managers (as aforedescribed) there was only one rank-and-file employee (Harvey) in the Union. On Ligurotus' visit to the station in January 1971, he told Duck that he had to have all of the station employees in the Union. Duck said he could not afford it. Ligurotus answered that he would "get [you] eight or nine cents a gallon more, like Standard Oil is getting." Duck replied that if Ligurotus did that, Duck would "put every man in the Union." Ligurotus displayed a list of seven employees not in the Union and said he would be back the following day. Ligurotus returned on the following day, with an individual he described as a union official "from Washing- ton to straighten up this." Apparently making no headway in the ensuing conversation , although he insisted he could not afford to "put" all of his employees into the Union-and despite the further fact that his employees present there themselves told Ligurotus that they did not desire to become members of Local 705-Duck asked Ligurotus and his associate "from Washington" to leave. When they refused to do so, Duck called the police. After Duck explained the situation to the police and they spoke to Ligurotus and his associate, the latter left, police apparently taking no further action. Gross revenues of the Duck service station in 1970 were $754,000 (75 percent for gasoline sales). Again, the testimony of Billy Duck is wholly uncontrad- icted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 22: Instance 22 : Eringis Service Station (4824 S. California Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, the uncontradicted testimony of General Counsel witness Kazys Eringis establishes that he has owned and operated the Texaco service station at 4824 South California Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, since 1958, from which year until 1967 he had a succession of "agreements" with Local 705 under which he made payments of various amounts which were collected from him regularly by Local 705 although he never paid the wage scales required by or otherwise observed provisions of those "contracts" (which he never so much as read), and the Union never so much as inquired. After Eringis signed his first "contract" with Local 705 (1958), the only employee in the Union from then until 1967 was Bitner (a mechanic), although Eringis had four other (2 full- and 2 regular part-time) employees during that period. And, when Bitner left Eringis' employ in 1967, Eringis placed himself (owner of the station) "in" the Union in place of Bitner ; and none of his four employees was then or thereafter a member of the Union. Union Business Agent Hall called at the station regularly for collections during 1967-68, in the latter year presenting another "contract" which Eringis signed, while continuing to be the only person at the station "in" the Union and while continuing to pay no attention to the "contract" provisions. During this period, Eringis continued to have four employees, none of whom the Union even claimed to represent. In response to a question by Hall, Eringis told him that he had four employees . When Hall asked, "How come they are not in the union," Eringis replied, "Go talk to the men, if you can sign them up, go ahead." After speaking to the employees, Hall left. Thereafter, Hall returned regularly , but only to collect from Eringis. In the latter part of 1968 , George White took over from Hall as Local 705 business agent and collector . Eringis continued to pay off only on himself. In response to White's questions on various occasions from 1968-70, Eringis told him he had four employees , two full- and two part-time ; and when White asked why no employee was in the Union, Eringis invited White to speak to the employees and perhaps they would join since it was up to them. Although White spoke to the employees, none joined. Eringis himself asked his employees, on various occasions in 1968-70, whether they desired to join Local 705, and they said no. At no time was any employee of Eringis a member of the Union and at no time did White even claim to represent any employee . Although Eringis had a series of "contracts"-none of which was adhered to or obser- ved-with Local 705, since 1967 it has been only Eringis himself who has been a member of the Union. When Eringis signed a new 3-year "contract " (1970-73) with Local 705, which White presented to him in December 1970, the situation was and has since remained the very same. On that occasion, too, with four employees at the station to White's knowledge, none was a union member and White did not claim to represent any; again invited by Eringis to speak to the employees , White did so but failed to enlist any into membership. Eringis, who has been a member of GRAMC since October 30, 1958, has displayed its emblem in his station window since 1969. On September 17, 1970, he executed a bargaining authorization designation to GRAMC. He stopped making payments to the Union in early 1972. During the representative year of 1970, his gross station revenues were $ 170,000 (80 percent from gasoline sales). Upon the foregoing credited and uncontradicted testi- mony of Kazys Eringis, I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 48 All had been retained from the employ of Martin Oil Company. 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 23. Instance 23: Fehsel Service Station (12000 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill.) The complaint contains like allegations concerning Walter Fehsel, who it is stipulated was unable to testify in person herein because of a disabling stroke which he suffered in March 1972, his testimony being stipulated 49 as follows. Fehsel has been the owner-operator of the Union 76 service station at 12000 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, since around 1945, with his son Thomas as a partner since 1%9. Although Fehsel has signed collective agreements with Local 705 since 1950, from at least 1%8 to date (1970-73 agreement) he himself (i.e., Fehsel, the station owner) has been the only individual at the station in Local 705, notwithstanding the fact that for that entire period (as well as prior thereto) he has had-exclusive of himself and his son-five (three full- and two regular part-time) employees there. Local 705 Business Agent George White, the only representative of that Union to the Fehsel station since at least August 1967, has never been observed speaking to any of the station's employees, nor did he at any time up to 1971 ask Fehsel how many employees he had nor even claim to represent a majority or indeed any of those employees nor that any of them wished to belong to or be represented by Local 705. When Fehsel signed the 1970-73 preprinted Local 705 contract, at White's behest, on or about November 9, 1970, the foregoing situation was and has since remained unchanged. At no time has Fehsel to his knowledge "observed, followed or enforced any of the provisions of the 1967-70, or 1970-73 agreements" with Local 705. Fehsel has since around 1946 continued to be a member of GRAMC, has since at least 1969 prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in the station's front window, and on or about August 21, 1970, executed to GRAMC an express bargaining authorization designation . Fehsel's gross reve- nues in 1970 were about $124,000 (around 70 percent from gasoline sales). Upon the basis of the foregoing stipulated testimony, which stands uncontradicted and is credited, I find the complaint allegations touching Walter Fehsel to be established by substantial credible evidence. 24. Instance 24: Flores Service Station (4257 W. 26th St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon substantially similar complaint allegations, Alfre- do Flores testified without contradiction that since September 8, 1969, under a year-to-year lease with an automatic renewal provision, he has owned and operated the Standard Oil service station at 4257 West 26th Street, Chicago. Flores also operated a service station at 4245 South Western Avenue from June 1, 1%7, to February, 1970. In June 1968 Flores received a visit at his Western Avenue station from Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri and a companion, who informed Flores that he was "suppose[d] to join" that Union. Flores said he had withdrawn from membership in the Teamsters Union in Gary, Indiana, but Spizzeri insisted Flores had to join. Flores asked Spizzeri to explain why, since Flores was an employer and the Union was for employees. Spizzeri nevertheless said that regardless of this Flores would "have to belong" that the only thing Flores would have to do would be to sign a contract, pay dues for himself, and "forget about the employees," and that in this way "nobody [will] bother [you]." Spizzeri said the dues were $18 every 3 months. When Spizzeri asked how many employees Flores had, Flores said he had two, one a gasoline attendant and the other a mechanic. Spizzeri and his companion returned to the Western Avenue station soon thereafter (July 1%8) and told Flores he would have to sign a contract and pay dues. Flores refused, stating that he was an employer and not an employee. Spizzeri warned him, "If you don't want no trouble here because we can-you know-make trouble for you, you better sign the contract and pay the dues." So Flores signed up. When Spizzeri then asked for health and welfare payments in addition, Flores told him he already carried sufficient insurance. Spizzeri thereupon told Flores he need not worry about the employees at the station. At no time did Spizzeri claim to represent any employee, nor inquire as to what their wages were , nor discuss any contract provision; nor did Flores at any time observe any provision of the "contract" he was required to sign. Thereafter Spizzeri visited the station each month, for the sole purpose of making collections ; at no time was he seen talking to any employee. In January 1970, Spizzeri visited Flores at his new-i.e., West 26th Street-service station, where he told Flores, "I see you got a new station . . . . You have to sign another contract here in this station." Again Flores asked why, and Spizzeri told him he had to sign a contract for the new station and pay dues on himself (Flores) at the new station as well as at the old station. Flores refused. The next month (February 1970) Spizzeri again called on Flores at the new (West 26th Street) station, demanding that he sign a contract and pay dues so that Spizzeri would not have to "make . . . . trouble . . . picket and stop the gas delivery." Flores again refused. Spizzeri nevertheless returned to the West 26th Street station in mid-March, renewing his demands. While Flores was busy with a customer, Spizzeri spoke to Flores' wife, Rosemary Flores, who was there at the time, and succeeded in obtaining her signature to the Local 705 "contract." Although the word "partner" appears near her signature, it is not in her handwriting, nor was or is she a partner. At this time, Flores had three employees (excluding himself) at the West 26th Street station-two full-time and one sporadic part-time. At no time did Spizzeri ask how many employees worked there, nor did he claim to represent any employee, nor discuss any contract provision; nor did Flores observe any contract provision. Flores ran both stations for a 3-month period, during which he paid "dues" to Local 705 on himself only at the Western Avenue (old) station; when he terminated his operation of that station (Western Avenue), he continued paying "dues" to Local 705, but only to November 1970. In that month (November 1970) Spizzeri 0 G.C. Exh 503. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 presented Flores at the West 26th Street station with a new preprinted Local 705 3-year (1970-73) contract for signa- ture by Flores, who refused to sign and referred Spizzeri to GRAMC as his bargaining agent. (Flores had signed a bargaining authorization to GRAMC on September 22, 1970, prominently displaying its distinctive emblem in his station window since then.) Spizzeri's response was, "This is something that is different, it have nothing to do with the union . . . . [You ] have to pay the dues and sign the contract." Spizzeri also warned of picketing and stopping gasoline deliveries. Spizzeri returned to the West 26th Street station in January 1971, to secure Flores' signature on the Local 705 contract, again warning him, "You better do it , amigo, because we going to start picketing your station." Flores referred Spizzeri to GRAMC. In mid-March-when Flores employed three (two full- and one part-time) employees at West 26th Street-Spizzeri once more returned there and again warned Flores that unless he signed up picketing would start. Flores again refused, and notified GRAMC and his gasoline supplier. Flores' station was never picketed.50 At no time did Spizzeri display any evidence of representing any employee, nor did he claim to represent any employee, nor did he inquire what wages were being paid, nor discuss any proposed contract provision, nor was he observed to talk to any employee. Flores' West 26th Street service station grossed $125,000 (60 percent gasoline sales, 20 percent other merchandise sales, 20 percent labor) in 1970. The foregoing account, extremely impressively recounted by Flores, was not only totally uncontradicted but also totally uncross-examined. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations pertaining to Alfredo Flores have been established by substantial credible evidence. 25. Instance 25: Floress Service Station (5130 S. Lake Park Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Again upon substantially similar complaint allegations, and again without contradiction, General Counsel witness, Robert E. Floress, testified that he was formerly the sole owner-operator of the Standard Oil station at 5130 South Lake Park Avenue, which he opened on December 16, 1968, and operated under the name "Lake Park Service, Inc."; on January 1, 1972, he took in a full co-owner or partner. When he first opened the station, Floress had three employees in addition to himself, but within 6 or 7 weeks he went up to eight (six full- and two part-time) employees. In early January 1969, Floress was visited at his service station by Union Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri, who informed him that he "wanted" 11 men "in" the Union. Spizzeri did not state or claim that he represented any employee. Explaining that he had just opened the station and wanted a chance to get started, Floress suggested that Spizzeri return later. About 2 or 3 weeks later Spizzeri retuned, this time accompanied by two associates, again demanding 11 men "to belong to" the Union in view of the station's size and the alleged number of union members in 235 nearby stations. Spizzeri, not claiming to represent any employee, pointed to a man, who Floress explained did not even work for him but had leased out some space for front- end work. Spizzeri said it made no difference, to "put him in the Union." Spizzeri threatened that he could stop gasoline deliveries and picket, which would stop the station from operating. A few weeks later Spizzeri returned and renewed his demand for "eleven union men" and to "put yourself in, of course." Floress thereupon "put" himself and four employ- ees, out of a crew of eight or nine (six or seven full-time), "into" Local 705. Spizzeri then sought to get employee Ferguson (Fergeson) to join Local 705. Ferguson refused, telling Spizzeri heatedly that it was "crooked and all they wanted to do was make money off of poor people." Thereupon Spizzeri said to Floress, "That man [i.e., Ferguson ] has to be in the union .... I want that man in the union." Ferguson said he would rather quit than be in. Nevertheless Floress "put" Ferguson into the Union. It is to be noted that the signature on Ferguson's union dues- checkoff "authorization" (G. C Exh. 27), undated, is not the signature of Ferguson. Spizzeri supplied Floress with union cards and Floress "figured out" which other employees to "put in" the Union. Floress himself paid their union "dues" (as well as health and welfare contributions for them) without pay deductions. Spizzeri (or another Local 705 agent, known as The Reverend) visited the station regularly to make collections ; at no time did they inquire about any new employees. After Floress' employee Warren left his employ around March 1969, Floress continued paying Local 705 his "dues" as if he were still employed at the station; 3 or 4 months later, when he told Spizzeri that he did not want to continue paying "dues" on somebody who was no longer working there, Spizzeri suggested that Floress "put your son in" (i.e., Floress' son) instead. When Floress pointed out that his son (who pumped gas at the station) was only 15 years old, Spizzeri said it made no difference. Floress replied that he would prefer to "get somebody else for you." When employees Grace and Ray subsequently also left his employ, Floress continued reporting and paying their "dues" to Local 705 as well, by check. Upon demand of Spizzeri, Floress also signed a 1970-73 contract with Local 705, without bargaining. At this time, excluding himself, Floress had 10 or 11 (eight or nine full- and two part-time) employees, with only three (plus himself) "in" the Union. Local 705 business agents' reports, listing employees, were filled out in Floress' presence by Spizzeri (or, sometimes, by the other Local 705 representative known as The Reverend); such a report for October 1970 (G.C. Exh. 28) lists Grace and Ray as employees although neither was then employed at the station. Floress has been a member of GRAMC, to Spizzeri's knowledge, since about the time he opened the station (i.e., December 16, 1968), with its distinctive emblem promi- nently displayed in the station window since then . Floress also executed an express bargaining authorization designa- tion to GRAMC on April 17, 1970. His station's gross revenues in 1970 were approximately $600,000 (about 70 50 As has been stated, the original charge herein was filed on November 18, 1970, and the complaint issued on December 30, 1971. 236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD percent gasoline sales); for 1971, on monthly sales of $85-$90,000, they are projected around a million dollars. As in all other instances, the testimony of Robert E. Floress was in no way contradicted , Respondent electing -without explanation-to produce no witnesses. Crediting Floress' testimony, I find the complaint allegations concerning him to be established by substantial credible evidence. 26. Instance 26: Ford Service Station (600 S. Homan, Chicago, Ill.) As like allegations, the uncontradicted testimony of General Counsel witness, Preston Ford, shows that he has owned and operated the Sunoco Service Station at 600 South Homan, Chicago, since December 23, 1969, when he acquired it from former owner, Willie Harrell ("Harold"), who did not have a contract with Local 705. Ford retained Harrell's three employees, as well as Harrell himself as station manager with full supervisory authority. I find that Harrell who at the time of the instant trial was still employed by Ford in the same capacity, has at all material times been a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, at the Ford station. Ford hired about four (three full- and one part-time) additional employees. With Harrell in full charge as station manager, Ford himself-a college instructor-is at the station only on some evenings and weekends. In January 1970 Ford was approached by Local 705 representative, James Jackson, who informed him he wanted him to become associated with the Union. Ford said he was not interested, had just started the business, and could not afford to pay union wages or health and welfare moneys. Jackson replied that Ford "had to join the Union" and "put" one or two of his employees "in"; that he realized Ford could not afford to "put" into the Union more than "one or two men that [you] can trust" and that then "I [Jackson] won't bother to tell the rest of the men and they won't know the difference." When Ford still declined, Jackson said he would be back. At no time did Jackson ask how many employees Ford had. Later that month (January 1970) Jackson returned, accompanied by Local 705 representative, George Gil- more, on the same mission. Ford again pointed out that he could not afford to affiliate with the Union. Saying he would "have to have [this] station," Jackson placed a preprinted Local 705 contract down on the table for Ford to sign "if you know what's good for you." When Ford asked what Jackson meant by that, Jackson replied, "We had a fellow same as you, hardheaded.... so I put him out of business and caused him to lose about $15,000. He had to go to a mental institution." Jackson then likewise threatened Ford to "cut your gas off and put you out of business," and advised Ford to talk it over with some friends before Jackson returned. A few weeks later (February 23, 1970) Jackson again returned on the same errand, again insisting that "you [Ford] have to join the union [and] give me the name of a couple men" and that "I warn you, if you don't sign it, we are going to tie you up and put you out of business." When Ford continued to refuse, Jackson yelled, "All right, men, let's go," proceeding out the station accompanied by two of the station employees (Russell and nightman Rayford). Jackson then pulled his automobile in front of the station, put a sign on the car, and he and Russell began picketing with signs stating that the station was unfair to employees and that Local 705 was on strike. Later, Rayford's car was also placed near the station with such a sign; still later, employee Douglas' car replaced Jackson's with the sign. Around 11:30 a.m., a heating fuel truck arrived to make a delivery. Rayford, with a visiting relative, approached the driver and instructed him not to make the delivery. When Ford told him to complete the delivery, Jackson ran over from across the street and, telling the truckdriver that "the station [is ] on strike by Local 705" and that the driver belonged to the same Union, warned the driver, "Don't drop the fuel oil if you know what is good for you." So the driver left without making the delivery. Around noon, a gasoline tanker pulled into the station to deliver gasoline. Jackson stopped the tanker with his hand and told the driver that "Local 705 [is] striking [this] station and [you] could not dump the gasoline . . . You a truck driver, you a member of the same union so you have to honor the picket sign or be fined." This driver also left without making a delivery. About a half-hour later, a milk delivery truck pulled in. Jackson approached the truck and told the truckdriver, "You can't drop the milk-you know you belong to a union, too." This driver likewise left without making the delivery. Thereupon Ford summoned the police, who arrived with five squad cars. After Ford explained the situation and requested the police to keep Jackson off his property, the police directed Jackson and the other pickets to remove themselves from the station and not to block the entrances. When employee Faulks ("Faust") reported to work as usual around 4 p.m., he refused to go on strike when asked to do so by a picket. When part-time employees Thomas and Travis appeared for work that evening, the pickets at the curb persuaded them not to resume work. Shortly before midnight, a gasoline delivery truck again arrived to make a delivery; but, after the truckdriver had already removed the receptor caps to make the delivery, he was approached by a picket (Rayford) and urged not to make the delivery. After making a telephone call, the driver left without making a delivery. By the end of the day (February 23), five of the station employees were not working. At no time prior to this had Local 705 agent Jackson or anybody else indicated that any employee was a member of or wished to belong to Local 705. At this time, the station had 12 or 13 (8-9 full- and the balance regular part-time) employees: of the five who did not work or were "on strike," three were full-time and two part-time employees; except for those five, all others continued to work. On the next day (February 24), Ford called Local 705 agent Jackson in to "try to work something out." Reminding Ford that he had warned him, Jackson said Ford would have to sign the (preprinted) contract and "put" all of his employees "in" the Union and pay each "strike[r] ... backpay" at the union scale dating back to his first employment date, amounting to some $4,000 for such "backpay" alone. When Ford said he did not have such money, Jackson continued to demand it, stating that TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 237 the "men were entitled to the money whether there was a union there or not." Ford continued to insist he simply did not have that much money. Finally, Jackson said that if Ford signed the contract and "put" all of his employees "into" the Union and paid the $4,000, he could eventually reduce his union employees to only four.51 By the fifth or sixth day after the picketing started-i.e., by March 1, Ford had laid off all but two employees, since he had exhausted his supply of gasoline and was unable to obtain any deliveries. On March 2 or 3, Local 705 Business Agent Jackson telephoned Ford at his home and arranged a meeting at the station . There Jackson (with his associate Gilmore) renewed the same demands which have been described. Ford assented to all except the "backpay," which he simply did not have. Gilmore offered to "bargain" after Ford signed the contract, but Ford pointed out he would then have no negotiating power. Gilmore thereupon suggested that if he signed up and "put" all of his employees "in" the Union, they could give him a "break" on the backpay around $1,400, but Ford insisted he did not have and could not raise $1,400. That evening, after a further talk with Jackson, the latter dropped the "backpay" ante to $600-$700 and again assured Ford that he could later reduce the number of his union employees to four. With Jackson's "permission," Ford spoke to his three striking employees Russell, Rayford, and Douglas directly, and they agreed to return to work. When the employees informed Jackson, however, Jackson started "screaming and yelling," accused Ford of "[taking] advantage of the guys," insisted that he (Jackson) would "not [going to ] let the men call off the strike, and excoriated the men that they were members of Local 705 and that they could not "call off the strike" or they would be fined and have to return strike money to the Union. When Jackson yelled at the three employees, "Let's go," they left with Jackson. This was the first intimation Ford had that any of his employees was a member of the Union. On March 4, Ford called Jackson to the station, exhibited his checkbook to Jackson, and told him he would have to close the station if he could not settle. At this, Jackson said he would "have" to sign "the contract," "put" all of his employees "in" the Union, and pay $600; and later reduce his union employees to only four. But when Ford pleaded that he did not have $600, Jackson said he could pay each full-tune employee $200 and each part-time employee $50 by checks to be held by Jackson for 60 to 90 days. Ford then did so, for seven employees, and signed the preprinted Local 705 contract; and he thereafter began deducting Union dues from his employees' checks. When Jackson visited the station in August 1970 to collect Union dues and health and welfare contributions, Ford pointed out to him that only one of his' employees -Harrell, the station manager -was in the Union, and Ford reminded Jackson of the latter's agreement to reduce the number of employees required to be "in" the Union. Acknowledging this, Jackson instructed Ford to "put" only one additional employee "in" the Union. Accordingly, 51 Later that day, Ford visited the NLRB regional office and filed an election petition, but was subsequently informed that the Board would not take jurisdiction because his gross annual revenue was only $300,000 and not $500,000 He subsequently went to the Illinois State Labor Relations Board, which also turned him away. Ford "put" into the Union the station mechanic (Smith), who signed a union card only because Ford told him to. At this time, Ford had at least eight (six full-time, including station manager Harrell and mechanic Smith, and two part-time) employees; and from then (August 1970) to December 31, 1970, only two of the eight employees (i.e., Station Manager Harrell and Mechanic Smith) were "in" the Union. At no time during 1970 did any union representative inquire how many employees Ford had. Ford has been a member of GRAMC since March 9, 1970, and on that date also expressly designated it as his bargaining representative. He has likewise since that date prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his station window. In September 1970, on his visit to the station for collections, Jackson presented Ford with a letter for signature by Ford, deauthorizing GRAMC to act as his bargaining representative. Jackson told Ford that GRAMC was going around trying to get dealers to disaffiliate from Local 705 although Local 705 had not forced any dealer "in." In October 1970, Jackson again asked Ford to sign the letter deauthorizing GRAMC, as well as a new 3-year contract with Local 705 "so that no attention would be drawn to [your] station." When Ford said he wanted to read it and asked who negotiated it, Jackson replied that "it's just a standard contract ... . We don't negotiate individual contracts." Jackson returned later that day for the signed contract, telling Ford, "Just sign it . . . . I don't want any problems over here . . . . I don't want anything to happen when the union starts tying up stations .... Don't worry about it, it's a standard contract." So Ford signed it. At this time he had eight or nine (six full-time, including Station Manager Harrelland Mechanic Smith, the balance, regular part-time) employ- ees, with only two (Station Manager Harrell and Mechanic Smith) "in" the Union. Jackson had been told and knew that Harrell was the station manager and supervisor, and that Smith was the mechanic 52 Jackson did not ask how many employees Ford had nor even claim to represent a majority. At no time did Jackson, Gilmore, or any other Local 705 representative claim that Local 705 represented a majority of the employees of the Ford station. The gross revenue of the Ford station in 1970 was around $320,000 (70 percent gasoline sales). Ford's testimony is totally undisputed by Jackson or any other witness. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Preston Ford have been established by substantial credible evidence. 27. Instance 27: Garst Service Station (2437 S. Laramie St., Cicero, Ill.) Upon kindred allegations, General Counsel witness Edward Garst testified without contradiction that after he opened up the Clark Oil service station at 2437 South Laramie Street, Cicero, Illinois, in October 1968, he received a visit in January 1969 from Local 705 Business 52 Ford had informed Jackson on the latter's very first visit to the station that Harrell was the station manager. Smith succeeded Portay as station mechanic ; although Jackson was informed by Portay as well as Ford that Portay was a member of a mechanics union , Jackson nevertheless insisted that Portay be put into Local 705 as well 238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Agents "Eddie" Miller and "Eddie" Dicks, who told him, "All the Clarks [i.e., Clark Oil service stations ] are in the union" and asked him if he would "put" two of his employees "in" Local 705. When Garst refused, Miller said, "We will fix you if you don't put two men in the union. We can make you put all your men in the union and the gasoline drivers belong to us," at the same time physically grabbing Garst's employee Sebesta and thrust- ing a Local 705 card at him and exclaiming, "Buddy, you are joining the union, sign this." Sebesta refused. Leaving some Local 705 membership cards , Miller and Dicks promised to be back the next day. After they left, Garst asked two of his employees-Sebesta Sebesta and Grevis -to sign the Local 705 membership cards, and they did. At this time, excluding himself Garst had five (three full- and two regular part-time) employees at the station. On the following day (January 29, 1969) Miller and Dicks returned and asked about the union cards they had left at the station the day before. Saying he had changed his mind, Garst turned over to them the Local 705 cards signed by Sebesta ("Secasta") and Grevis ("Gregas") under the circumstances described, together with a copy of the preprinted Local 705 "contract" which Garst had also signed. At no time had Miller or Dicks asked how many employees Garst had, nor indicated they represented a majority or indeed any of the employees ; nor was either observed to speak to any employee (other than to Sebesta when he was manhandled as aforesaid). Thereafter Miller visited the Garst service station each 3 months or so to make collections of "dues" and also health and welfare contributions. Garst had five to seven (four full- and three regular part-time), and during 1970 six to eight (half full- and half regular part-time) employees, but never over two "in" the Union. Some of the "employees" upon whom Garst paid, and Miller collected, "health and welfare contributions," and listed on the Local 705 "report" sheets were no longer employed by Garst (an example is Sebesta, who left Garst's employ in March or April, 1969). At no time did Garst pay the wages called for by his "contract" with Local 705, nor did any Local 705 representative ever inquire whether he was doing so. Garst has been a member of GRAMC since February 1969, executed an express bargaining authorization desig- nation to it on August 5, 1970, and had prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his service station window since October 1970. Toward the end of November 1970 (i .e., about a month after the 1967-70 "contract" had expired), Miller handed Garst a new 3-year preprinted contract, for 1970-73, remarking to him, "What is your excuse going to be for not signing the contract? ... You guys can't win." In December 1970, Miller returned to see Garst three times for the signed new contract . Although he told Garst, "You can't win," Garst continued to refuse to sign up. On his last visit in December, Miller became incensed and yelled at Garst, "We are going to shut all you guys dawn and put you fellows out of business who didn't sign the contract and the sh-t is going to hit the fan ... after the holidays .... the gasoline drivers belong to us." Garst told Miller to leave. But Miller returned again in January ; indeed, three times in one week, repeating to Garst, "You can't win . you are wasting your time." Miller also brought with him his associate Dicks , who yelled threats to put Garst out of business. When they (i.e., Miller and Dicks) again returned thereafter, Garst finally signed the "contract." Miller said Garst had "made a wise decision" and that he (Miller) would be back in a few days to collect but that henceforth although Garst would be "lucky" and have the "same deal" as before , Miller now wanted three men "in" the Union. At this time-as well as since November 1970-although Garst still had seven or eight employees, only one -Tim Rust, the station manager-supervisor-was "in" the Union. At no time had Miller, Dicks, or any other Local 705 representative asked Garst how many employees he had nor displayed any evidence that any employee belonged to Local 705, nor claimed to represent any employee. Within a week following Miller's demand in connection with Garst's signing of the "new contract" (1970-73), under the circum- stances described that Garst 'put" three men into the Union, Miller `put" two employees "into" Local 705-one of them was Witsel, who had not been working for him since mid- 1970. At no time was Garst asked who his employees were. The gross revenues of the Garst service station in 1970 were about $469,000 (about two-thirds gasoline sales). As already indicated, Garst's testimony was wholly uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Edward Garst have been estab- lished by substantial credible evidence. 28. Instance 28: Gordon Service Station (7059 S. State St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon like allegations, General Counsel witness, Morris Gordon, testified-again without contradiction-that he opened the Standard Oil service station at 7059 South State Street, Chicago, in or around 1965, with six new, full-time employees. In April 1968, he was visited by Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri, who indicated that Gordon "could put [only ] four in the union." Gordon thereupon, in the presence of Spizzeri and with Spizzeri filling in part of each card himself printed at least three employees ' "signa- tures" (i.e., those of Gaus [Goss], Locket, Elmore, and Chapman 53) on Local 705 "membership" cards, without the employees' authorization, consent or knowledge then, before, or after; and Gordon then signed the usual Local 705 preprinted form contract. Upon this basis the employees- were "listed on the [Union's l books" as members. At no time did Spizzeri so much as claim to represent any employee. And at no time did Gordon pay any employee the union scale wages calledfor by his "contract" with Local 705, nor did he observe any other provision of the "contract"- -oth- er than to make payment of `flues" and health and welfare "contributions" on behalf of the employees without their knowledge-even in 1970, when none was any longer in his employ.54 In October 1970, Gordon pointed out to Spizzeri-the collector-that he had been making payments to Spizzeri for years on four employees no longer in his employ. 53 Three of those cards were produced at the instant teal by Respondent 54 Goss later returned from the Navy. Union pursuant to subpena. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 239 Spizzeri thereupon allowed Gordon to reduce the number from four to three, to consist of Station Owner Gordon himself (see G.C. Exh. 386), Gordon's son Paul (see G.C. Exh. 387) who was not then working for him and did not start working for him until the spring of 1971, and Calvin Long (See GC Exh.388) without asking or telling Long; Gordon himself filled in and signed Long's name and his son Paul's name on the Local 705 "membership" cards, in Spizzeri s presence and with Spizzeri filling in part of the cards. The Local 705 union business agent's reports (G.C. Exhs. 389 & 390) of Spizzeri himself in part corroborate the foregoing. Around November 1970, when Spizzeri presented a new 3-year (1970-73) Local 705 preprinted contract to Gordon for signature, Gordon complained that he could not afford "to pay for four men any more" and that he "couldn't afford to pay union wages" (as called for by the new "contract"). Spizzeri agreed to cut back the required number of "members" on whom he was making collections from Gordon, from four to three; and he reminded Gordon that "Nobody [is] asking [you] to pay union wages. You pay what you want." Gordon thereupon signed the "contract." At this time, Gordon had-excluding himself-five full-time employees, of whom only one (i.e., Long) was-without Long's authorization or even knowledge, "in" Local 705, his membership authorization card having been signed by Gordon in the presence of Spizzeri; the other two required "memberships" consisted of Gordon himself and Gordon's son Paul who was not employed at the station (and whose name Gordon had likewise signed). Except for paying collections to Spizzeri, Gordon at no time observed any provision of any of his "contracts" with Local 705. When Gordon received Long's union "member- ship" card he "buried it somewhere" and never gave it to Long-thus keeping Long in utter ignorance of his union "membership." At no time did Gordon's employees know about the 1967-70 or 1970-73 "Union contracts," which Gordon on cross-examination characterized as a "private deal" between himself and Spizzeri.55 Subsequently, when Gordon informed Spizzeri that he "couldn't afford to pay for three men anymore .... if he wanted me, I'd have to sign for two only . . . . otherwise I gQ out of business," the only "two" on whom Gordon continued to make payments to Local 705 were Gordon himself and his son Paul (see G.C. Exh. 393). Gordon has been a member of GRAMC (as he specifically informed Spizzeri) since December 1967, with its distinctive emblem prominently displayed on his service station's front door. On August 26, 1970, he signed an express authorization designating it as his bargaining agent. The gross volume of business of his station in 1970 was $373,000 (over 80 percent gasoline sales). As has been indicated, none of this was in any way disputed by Spizzeri or any other Local 705 witness or proof; nor was Local 705's failure to produce Spizzeri, or any other witness or proof, at the trial in any way explained. I find that the complaint allegations pertaining to Morris Gordon have been established by substantial credible evidence. 29. Instance 29: Gregory Service Station (1810 W. 35th St., Chicago, Ill.) On like allegations, General Counsel witness, Bonard Gregory, testified-also without contradiction-that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 1810 West 35th Street, Chicago, since June 28, 1969, when he took it over from the prior owner (Richard De Maro [?], none of whose employees he retained) and hired four new employees to run the station on the required round-the- clock basis. On July 21, 1969-within a month after going into business-Gregory was visited by Local 705 Business Representative Spizzeri, who presented him with a pre- printed Local 705 contract, which Gregory signed. After Gregory signed this "contract" purporting to recognize Local 705 as the exclusive bargaining representative of his employees, Spizzeri informed Gregory that he "wanted three men in the union"; when Gregory told Spizzeri that he was a member, Spizzeri limited the number to two. Gregory told Spizzeri he had only one man , Maynard; on Spizzeri's instructions Gregory filled in and signed Maynard's name on the union card which Spizzeri completed Gregory also signed a card for himself, and paid the required union initiation fees, "dues," and health and welfare `contrib- utions" for a 3-month period. At this time, Gregory had four (three full- and one regular part-time) employees. At no time did Spizzeri claim to represent any of them, nor even ask how many employees Gregory had. Although Spizzeri called at the station regularly each 3 months thereafter to make collections, at no time was he observed to speak to any employee; nor did he ever ask how many employees Gregory had . From September 1969 to December 1970, the Gregory service station had from seven to nine (five-six full- and the balance regular part- time) employees, exclusive of Gregory ; during the same period, the highest number of employees "in" (as aforede- scribed) the Union was two (exclusive of Gregory himself until November 1970, when he dropped out). In the same way as he had to employee Maynard, Gregory also-again upon advice of and in the presence of Spizzeri-in 1970 filled out union cards for his employees Kraus and Doolan (G.C. Exh. 89-90), later telling them (as well as Maynard). Save for the "collections" paid to Local 705, at no time did Gregory observe any of the provisions (including wage scales) of his "contract" with Local 705, nor did he so much as read the "contract ",- nor did Spizzeri ever inquire whether the contract was being observed. In August 1970, Gregory executed a bargaining authori- zation designation to GRAMC, which he joined in November 1970, and has since prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his station window. On November 15, 1970, Spizzeri presented to Gregory ..your new contract." When Gregory refused to sign it, Spizzeri pointed to the GRAMC emblem on the station window and said, "That is the damn reason you are not ss I sustained Gordon's constitutional plea of self-incrimination concern- ing his payments to the Union See Instance 80 (Wmtercorn), infra 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signing it." Gregory replied that he could not afford it. Spizzeri thereupon threatened, "If [you don't] sign it things could get awful hot around the station," pointing out "that they'd run a station on River Road out of business and they'd do the same to me, said they cut the guy's gas supplies off and in a few days he was out of gas and he had to go out of business." Gregory nevertheless refused to sign up. At this time, Gregory had seven to nine (five full- and four part-time) employees, with only two (plus himself) "in" the Union. When Spizzeri returned in December (1970) concerning the new (i.e., 1970-73) Local 705 "contract," Gregory still refused to sign it. Spizzeri indicated that although he could not picket "right now because [I am] too busy," he would, and warned that he would "run [you] out of business" if Gregory did not sign up, adding that "[I've-i.e., Spizzeri ] always been straight with [you] . . . . let you get by with two or three guys in the union, [I ] never give [you ] trouble," and that this deal could continue if Gregory signed up. Gregory replied that Local 705 did nothing for the employees and that Gregory didn't like it. Spizzeri's response to this was that Gregory was "crazy" and that he would go broke if he had to pay for all employees. Gregory agreed that if he were required to do so, he would have to go out of business. The following colloquy ensued: [Spizzeri]: If you don't sign it we are going to run you out of business .... [like we ] run the station out of business on River Road . . . . because the owner got smart with us . . . . the Gasoline Retailers Association [i.e., GRAMC] didn't give the guy on River Road a damn thing . . . . it was no good... . [Gregory]: I [have] never negotiated a contract. [Spizzeri]: It [is] not your place to negotiate ... . [The] major oil companies . . . . negotiated a contract and okayed it and it [is] up to [you] to sign it . . . . If [you don't] sign, [we'll] put the pickets up and run [you] out of business . . . . The major [oil] companies will absorb the increase... . [Gregory ]: When I [get] an increase in my money [from the oil company], I'd consider signing the contract. Spizzeri returned a number of times in January 1971, continuing to press Gregory to sign the new contract, but Gregory persisted in his refusal. Spizzen informed Gregory that Spizzeri's boss, Peick, had sent him and warned that if Gregory did not sign up Local 705 would picket and "run [you] out of business-[you] wouldn't have nothing to sell." When a nearby employee asked Spizzen why he didn't get out and leave Gregory alone, Spizzeri told him to "Shut up, [you have] nothing to do with it." When Gregory refused to sign a contract unless his employees signed union cards, Spizzeri informed him that his employees "had nothing to do with it," it was only between Gregory and Spizzeri. When Gregory reminded Spizzeri that his employees had never wanted to belong to the Union and that he had put them "in" only at Spizzeri's insistence, Spizzeri threatened "[We'll] spend a zillion dollars to run [you] out of business" and that if Local 705 picketed Gregory would have "nothing to sell," and would meet the same fate as service station owner Elijah McCoy.56 Gregory nevertheless refused to sign up and stopped making payments to Local 705 thereafter. (At this time, Gregory had seven to nine-five to six full- and the balance regular part- time--employees.) Gross revenues of the Gregory station in 1970 were $442,000 (70 percent from gasoline sales). Again, Respondent without explanation failed to, pro- duce any witness to contradict any of Gregory's testimony, which I credit. I find that the complaint allegations concerning Bonard Gregory have been established by substantial credible evidence. 30. Instance 30: Guglielmino Service Station (1213 N. Central Ave., Chicago, III.) Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness, John Guglielmino (Gugliemino), whose Shell Oil service station at 1213 North Central Avenue, Chicago, grossed over $400,000 in 1971 (80 percent in gasoline sales), testified that he opened that station on and has owned and operated it since October 1, 1970, with seven (six full- and one sporadic part-time) employees in addition to himself. Also in October 1970, he joined and has since belonged to GRAMC and designated it as his authorized bargaining agent, and has prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his station window. At the trial, it was admitted by Respondent by stipulation upon the record that in November 1970, as well as January and February 1971, Local 705 through various of its agents "threatened Employer John Guglielmino at his business location in Chicago, Illinois . . . . in that the agents made statements to the effect that if Guglielmino did not sign a collective bargaining agreement with Respondent [Local 7051 the service station Guglielmino was operating at the time would be picketed and would not receive any gasoline deliveries." It was further stipulated by Respondent that the agreement referred to was its preprinted form 1970-73 agreement (Joint Exh. 1); and that in connection therewith Respondent's agent stated to Guglielmino in January 1971, "You don't have to put all your men in the Union. Just put one in, and then no one will bother you." Guglielmino never signed a contract with Local 705, nor did any of his employees become a member of that Union. The testimony of Guglielmino was in no way disputed; he was not cross-examined. Upon the basis of his testimony and Respondent's described stipulations, I find that the complaint allegations concerning John Guglielmi- no have been established by substantial credible evidence. 31. Instance 31: Halliburton Service Station (50 E. North Ave., Villa Park, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness Thomas Edward Halliburton, whose former Martin Oil service station at 500 East North Avenue, Villa Park (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, grossed $588,000 (90 percent gasoline sales) in 1971, testified that he operated that station from July 31, 1970, to February 9, 1972. Hallibur- 56 Infra, instance 51 TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 241 ton took the station over from former owner Al "Gold- berg," retaining all five of the latter's employees and adding two more (his father, Edward Halliburton, and Jerry Cass). Goldberg had no union contract nor were any of his employees Local 705 members. In October 1970, Halliburton was visited at his new station by Local 705 Business Agent Peter Alex, who said that when the station had been "company-operated" it had some union members, and read off some names of alleged members, none of whom Halliburton knew anything about. Alex told Halliburton that he would "have to join the Union and put your employees in the Union." Halliburton said he was new and could not afford it. Alex asked how many employees Halliburton had and Hallibur- ton said seven . Alex left after saying he would look into the situation. A few days later, Halliburton was informed by several of his employees that they wanted nothing to do with Local 705, would not pay initiation fees or dues, and did not need its health and welfare program. During the next month (November 1970), Alex returned, again asking Halliburton to "sign up" with Local 705, but this time warning that if he did not do so he could set up a picket line and stop gasoline deliveries to the station. Halliburton asked Alex to leave the contract so that he could look it over. Alex replied that he could not leave the contract but would (and did) leave six or seven Local 705 union dues-checkoff authorization forms and told Halh- burton that he "wanted me [Halliburton] to put two guys in the Union right now, me and Jerry Cass [the full-time assistant manager of the station and a supervisor within the meaning of the Act] . . . . and have them ready for [me] when [I, Alex] come back." After Alex left, Halliburton gave Cass the Local 705 card; Cass wrote on the card, "Don't want no Union." The other cards were distributed among the rank-and-file employees. On November 30, 1970, Alex returned. Halliburton gave Alex the Local 705 cards which Alex had left for signature; the employees had written thereon, "Don't want Union," "Union not wanted," or "Get lost." Nevertheless, Halhbur- ton signed the Local 705 "contract" put before him by Alex when the latter (1) threatened that if he failed to sign it his gasoline supplies would be "shut off," and (2) reassured him that if he signed it then and there, only he himself (owner Halliburton) and Cass (assistant manager and supervisor) need be "in" the Union and that they would be "all it would be enforced on." When he left, however, Alex left more union authorization cards. At this time, Halliburton had eight (five full- and three regular part-time) employees. At no time did Alex so much as claim to represent any employee, nor did he inquire as to wages being paid, nor did he discuss the "contract"; nor has Alex ever been observed talking to any of the employees other than Assistant Manager Cass, who-al- though he made it clear to Alex that he wanted no part of Local 705-was told by Alex that "sooner or later" Cass ..was going to sign up." Notwithstanding his signature oil the "contract" with Local 705, at no time did Halliburton pay any dues, initiation fees, or health and welfare contributions on anybody; nor did he in any way observe any provision of the "contract." When Alex returned again in January 1971 for the "authorization cards," Halliburton informed him that his men "didn't want the Union." Alex again threatened that Halliburton would "have to join the Union and have [your) men sign up ; otherwise, [your] gas deliveries would be stopped." Alex again revisited the station in March (1971) on the same mission. Halliburton again told him that he was unable to give him any signed union cards because his men did not want the Union. At this time, Alex told Halliburton that the Martin Oil Company would make it possible for three or four men to be in the Union by increasing Halliburton's margin on the gasoline; Halliburton replied that if this were done, it might be possible. When Alex returned on the same errand in April (1971), essentially the same scene was replayed, as it was again in July (1971), except that on the latter occasion Halliburton told Alex he wanted nothing to do with his Union. Halliburton had joined GRAMC and executed express bargaining authorization credentials to it on August 3, 1970, with two of its distinctive emblems prominently displayed on each of his station's doors at all times. During one of Alex's early visits to the station, Halliburton pointed out to Alex that he (Halliburton) had designated GRAMC to bargain for him. Halliburton's testimony, which, again, stands uncontro- verted, is credited. I find that General Counsel has established the allegations of the complaint pertaining to Thomas Edward Halliburton, by substantial credible evidence. 32. Instance 32: Andrew Hamblen Service Station (2500 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Ill.) On similar allegations, General Counsel witness, Andrew Hamblen, testified that after he had been manager of the Martin Oil service station at 2500 West Peterson Avenue, Chicago, he took over its ownership and operation in March 1970 with Ronald Cook as partner, retaining three out of the nine existing employees and hiring some new employees. In November (1970) the partnership was dissolved, leaving Hamblen as sole owner-operator, with 10 (7 full- and 3 part-time) employees. Meanwhile, Hamblen had joined GRAMC in May 1970, since then its distinctive emblem has been prominently displayed at the station. On January 13, 1971, business agents of Local 705-identified by their distinctive "705" automobile license plates-visited Hamblen's station to obtain his signature on a contract with that Union . Hamblen declined, stating that he could not pay union scale wages or would have to go out of business. When he also said he would call GRAMC, he was told by the Local 705 representative, "Gasoline Retailers is not the ones that brings your gas. 705 is!" At this time, displaying a list of names-but without displaying any union cards or other authorization credentials, or in any way even claiming to represent any of the listed individuals-the Local 705 representative asked Hamblen how many on that list were employed at the station. Hamblen said three. At no time did any Local 705 representative indicate he represented any of the three; nor did any of the three, or any other employee, ever tell Hamblen he belonged to Local 705. Early the next month (February 1971), Local 705 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Business Agent Harty, accompanied by an associate, visited Hamblen and instructed him to just "put your key man in." Under these circumstances, Hamblen signed the Local 705 preprinted "contract." Harty left additional union cards, stating, "Pick out the employees you want in the union and have them sign. Your representative will be back in 30 days to pick it up." At this time Hamblen had nine (seven full-time, including Station Manager McDan- iel, and two regular part-time) employees. At no time did Hamblen obtain a signed union membership or application card from even a single employee. In early April 1971, the Local 705 business agent who had accompanied Harty returned and asked for signed union cards and dues. Hamblen refused. The Local 705 representative then reminded Hamblen , "You've got a contract now." Hamblen telephoned GRAMC and re- ferred the Local 705 representative to GRAMC; immedi- ately thereafter the Local 705 representative was observed speaking to Hamblen's employees. He left soon thereafter and has not been seen at Hamblen's station since. At no time has Hamblen paid any employee the wage scales called for by the "contract" he signed with Local 705, nor has he paid any money to Local 705. At the trial, Respondent Local 705 stipulated on the record that it had not received any application for membership (nor other evidence of desire for union membership or bargaining representation) from any of Hamblen 's employees at least during any time here material (January 1, 1970-July 31, 1971), nor any dues, health and welfare, or any payments pertaining to any of them. The gross revenues of Hamblen's station in 1970 were around $790,000, about 80 percent from gasoline sales. Again, Hamblen's testimony is uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Andrew Hamblen have been established by substantial credible evidence. 33. Instance 33: John Hamblen Service Station (6256 N. Harlem Ave., Chicago, Ill.) On like allegations, General Counsel witness John R. Hamblen (also known as Richard Hamblen) testified that he opened the Martin Oil service station at 6256 North Harlem Avenue, Chicago, in July 1966 and owned and operated it until May 1972. In the fall of 1967, Hamblen was visited at his station by Local 705 representative Donald Heim, who asked hun, "How long you been here?" When Hamblen told him since July 1966, Heim said, "How did you get away from us this long? ... You got to sign a union contract and we have to have three men out of your station .... We have to have three men." When Hamblen inquired as to how it was that other service station dealers could "get by" with it, Heim indicated they were paying off "the union dues" to Local 705 out of their own pockets. Soon after the foregoing episode , in September 1967, Heim returned on the same mission , this time accompanied by Local 705 representative "Danny" Ligurotus and another. When Hamblen argued that his employees had not been employed at the station long enough to be "put in" Local 705, Ligurotus suggested he place himself (i.e., owner Hamblen) "in" along with his brother Andrew (who never worked for him and was not even there), and he placed one employee "in"-Dawson. Thereupon, Hamblen himself signed the name of his employee Dawson on the Local 705 membership application card without ever obtaining Dawson's permission or telling Dawson about it. Hamblen then began paying Local 705 "dues" on the foregoing three persons "in" the Union (i.e., himself, his brother Andrew who did not work there, and his employee Dawson without Dawson's consent or knowledge); however, Hamblen signed no contract with Local 705. At this time, Hamblen had seven (five full- and two regular part-time) employees, exclusive of himself. At no time did the Union inquire how many employees he had nor what wages he was paying, nor claim to represent any employee, nor discuss any proposed contract provision; nor did Hamblen pay union scale. At the instant hearing, Respondent Local 705 produced, under subpena, a union card with the name John Hamblen on it, but Hamblen swore without contradic- tion that the "signature" on it was not his and that he had at no time signed it or any other such card In April 1968, Local 705 Business Agent Ligurotus presented a preprinted Local 705 contract to Hamblen, with the Local 705 officials' signatures already on it, and told Hamblen that he "had to sign" it. Although Ligurotus did not ask how many employees Hamblen had, nor claim to represent any, nor ask what wages Hamblen was paying any of them, nor discuss any proposed contract provision, Hamblen signed the preprinted exclusive bargaining agent recognition contract containing the union-security provi- sion. However, at no time did Hamblen observe any provision of that "contract," although he paid to Local 705 "dues" on himself and the aforedescribed two other individuals, neither of whom belonged to the Union. Ligurotus was never observed to talk to any employee. In March 1969, Hamblen informed Local 705 represent- ative Heim that several other Local 705 agents had called at the station and insisted that all employees be "put in" the Union. Heim told Hamblen, "Forget about it ... . Give me one more [man ] and we will forget about it." Thereupon, in Heim's presence, Hamblen signed the name of another employee-Kyle-to a Local 705 card and paid Local 705 its "dues" on him. At no time did Hamblen obtain Kyle's permission to sign his name on the card nor did Hamblen ever inform Kyle he had done so. At this time, Hamblen had seven (five full- and two regular part- time) employees, exclusive of himself. In late November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Ligurotus presented a new preprinted 3-year (1970-73) exclusive bargaining-recognition "contract," with the Local 705 officials' signatures already on it, to Hamblen for signature. Hamblen pointed to the distinctive emblem of GRAMC-which he had joined and designated as his bargaining agent on October 10, 1970-in his station window. Ligurotus exclaimed, "These are a bunch of a-holes." At this time, although he continued to have seven (five full- and two regular part-time) employees, exclusive of himself, Hamblen was paying Local 705 "dues" and health and welfare "contributions" only on himself and on none of his employees. Ligurotus did not ask how many employees Hamblen had, nor ask what wages they were receiving, nor claim to represent any, nor discuss TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 243 any proposed contract provision. Hamblen signed the 1970-73 "contract." However, he never observed any of its terms. Nor was Ligurotus ever observed talking to any employee. In January 1971, Ligurotus informed Hamblen, in the presence of station employee Gramse, that he was "going to put pickets up." Hamblen told him to go ahead. Ligurotus asked Gramse if he worked there. When Gramse said yes, Ligurotus told Gramse he could not work there unless he joined the Union. Gramse refused to join. Ligurotus returned to the station later that month (January 1971) and informed Hamblen that he "had to carry four union cards." (At this time, Hamblen was still making payments to the Union only on himself. ) Hamblen told Ligurotus he could not afford it. Ligurotus asked whether he could do so if Martin Oil Company increased his gasoline profit margin by I cent a gallon. When Hamblen said he could do so in that event, Ligurotus stated to Hamblen that Local 705 official Peick was at the Martin Oil Company office right then negotiating that very thing. Under these circumstances, Hamblen himself signed three of his employees' names on Local 705 cards. This time, however, he told the employees he was doing so--employ- ee Pick (Pike), who refused to pay dues, and whom Hamblen promised he (Hamblen) would pay his "dues"; and employees Forshee and Gramse, after each of them had first said, "P-ss on the union."57 The John R. Hamblen service station had a gross revenue of approximately $776,000 (80 percent gasoline sales) in 1970. Once again, as in all other cases, the testimony of John R. Hamblen is wholly uncontroverted, Respondent having failed-without explanation-to dispute it in any way. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concern- ing John (also known as John R. and as Richard) Hamblen have been established by substantial credible evidence. 34. Instance 34: Hooks Service Station (3357 W. Harrison St., Chicago, Ill.) On like allegations, Rev. James C. Hooks testified that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 3357 West Harrison Street, Chicago, since February 29, 1968, when he hired an entirely new crew of nine (six full- and three regular part-time) employees in addition to himself. In March 1968, within a month after opening, Rev. Hooks was visited by a Local 705 representative 58 who announced to him, "This is a union station and [you'll] have to put three men into the Union," handing him a preprinted Local 705 contract and three blank union membership application dues-checkoff authorization cards. Rev. Hooks gave the cards to three of his employees in the presence of the Local 705 representative, who had at no time even claimed to represent any employee. Rev. Hooks instructed the three employees-one of whom was his brother, the assistant manager of the station and a sr Hamblen testified on cross-examination that he made a claim against the union health and welfare plan on his own behalf or for a family member ; and that he deducted Local 705 "dues" from the wages of only those employees who would "let me." se Although Rev Hooks was unable to identify him by name, it was the same individual who subsequently called to make "collections" on behalf of supervisor within the meaning of the Act, "[You are] going into the Union," so they signed the cards. (At this time, Rev. Hooks continued to have nine regular employees as aforesaid.) Each month thereafter, the union business agent called to make "collections" of "dues" and health- welfare "contributions," which Rev. Hooks paid. When the Local 705 business agent subsequently informed Rev. Hooks that an "operation of [your ] size . . . requires four men in the Union," Rev. Hooks "put into" Local 705 his employee Willie Hawkins; when employee Walker left Rev. Hooks' employ, Rev. Hooks "put" himself "into" Local 705. Rev. Hooks joined GRAMC on or about April 25, 1968, since then he has prominently displayed its distinc- tive emblem in the front window of his service station. On August 5, 1970, he executed an express formal authoriza- tion to GRAMC to bargain for him. In November 1970, Rev. Hooks was visited by three individuals who asked him if he was ready to sign a new, preprinted Local 705 contract which they presented to him . Inquiring who had negotiated it, Rev . Hooks declined to sign it. Later that month (November 1970) four Local 705 representatives called on Rev. Hooks, again displaying the same 3-year preprinted Local 705 contract. When Rev. Hooks again demurred, he was warned, "I'd hate to see you tied up .. . [which ] means picketed where you cannot get gasoline." At this time, Rev. Hooks still had nine regular employees, but was paying Local 705 "dues" and health and welfare "contributions" on only one rank-and-file employee, Hearn (in addition to himself and supervising Assistant Manager Sweeny Hooks-Rev. Hooks' brother). When Local 705 Business Representative James Jackson visited Rev. Hooks in December 1970, again with the "new contract" for Rev. Hooks to sign, Rev. Hooks again inquired who had negotiated it, pointing out that GRAMC had not. Again Jackson warned him, "I hate to see you tied up." When Jackson returned again on the same errand in January 1971 and Rev. Hooks continued to refuse to sign up, Jackson told him, "Gasoline Retailers [i.e., GRAMC] [doesn't] represent [you]." Meanwhile at or around this time Jackson and others were picketing a Sunoco station across the street; and Rev . Hooks also saw two other nearby stations (the Jervier service station and, later, the Ashcraft service station) being picketed by Jackson and others. When Jackson persistently revisited Rev. Hooks in February, March, and April 1971 , insisting upon his signing the "new contract" with Local 705 and continuing to warn him that "[I'd] hate to tie [you] up, "Rev. Hooks, observing the neighboring service stations being picketed by Jackson, finally signed up in April (1971). At this time, although he had around 10 (6 full- and 4 part-time) employees, only two (and he himself) were "in" the Union.59 Rev. Hooks' service station had a gross business of over $750,000 (around 80 percent gasoline sales) in 1970. Local 705, which were paid by checks of Rev Hooks which cleared the bank account of Local 705. 59 Rev. Hooks deducted Local 705 "dues" from these employees' wages. He himself paid to Local 705 the -required health and welfare "contri- butions" on them. 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rev. Hooks' testimony, again wholly uncontroverted, is credited. I find that the complaint allegations concerning Rev. James C. Hooks have been established by substantial credible evidence. 35. Instance 35: Iverson Service Station (7781 W. Lake St., River Forest, Ill.) On like allegations, General Counsel witness, Raymond J. Iverson, testified that he has owned and operated two service stations in River Forest (a suburb 12 miles west of Chicago), Illinois-(l) a Shell Oil service station at 7781 West Lake Street, since August 1953 , and (2) a Standard Oil service station at 8001 West Lake Street, only from February 1 , 1%8, to February 1, 1971. The stations are three blocks apart and Iverson, as sole owner, shifted employees from station to station as required. The Standard station was opened on February 1, 1%8, with a complement of seven (three full-time, including Mike Konwinski, formerly a full-time employee at the Shell station, who was made manager of the Standard station and was a supervisor there within the meaning of the Act ; 60 and four regular part-time) employees; at that time, the Shell station had a complement of eight (five full- and three regular part-time) employees. Around February 1 , 1%8, Local 705 representative Dicks informed Iverson that since he would "have to have" another man "in" the Union, "You [Iverson ] might as well go in as anybody else to get the benefits from the health and welfare,"81 and at the same time to keep Konwinski (who had been promoted to the job of supervising manager of the Standard station) "in" at the Shell station, notwithstanding the fact that Konwinski was no longer employed at the Shell station. Accordingly, Dicks' sugges- tions were carried out by Iverson . In 1%8, the Shell station actually had eight (three full- and five regular part-time) employees, excluding Iverson, and of course excluding Konwinski who was no longer employed there ; at the same time, the Standard station had six (two full- and four regular part-time) rank-and-file employees plus Supervisor- Manager Konwinski. Around November 1970, Local 705 Business Representa- tive Dicks presented Iverson with two new Local 705 preprinted 3-year contracts (one for each station) for signature. When Dicks returned on the same mission about 2 weeks later, Iverson asked him about his bargaining representative GRAMC.62 Dicks said , "In no way are we affiliated with those bums." When Iverson told Dicks he did not think he wanted to sign the contracts, Dicks warned him, "Quit loafing or quit holding back, [you] know [I] can stop the gasoline" and to have them signed when he returned. Iverson did. However, although at this time exclusive of himself Iverson had eight (three full- and five part-time) employees at his Shell station , not a single employee there was in the Union; only Iverson.timself was "in" the Union. At the same time, of a total of seven (two full-time rank-and-file, four regular part-time, and Supervi- sor-Manager Konwinski) employees at Iverson's Standard station, not a single employee there other than Supervisor- Manager Konwinski was "in" the Union. (The only Local 705 membership application produced by it, pursuant to subpena, at the instant trial, was that of Konwinski.) At no time since February 1, 1968, has any individual at the Shell station other than Iverson himself been "in" the Union. Around December 1970, Iverson told Local 705 Repre- sentative Dicks that it would be a good idea to straighten out the situation of union membership at the "wrong" station (i.e., involving Standard station Supervisor-Manag- er Konwinski being carried as a rank-and-file employee at the Shell station). Dicks advised him not to worry about it, since if anything "came up," he (Dicks) would "straighten it out." And Dicks continued to make "collections" regularly on this basis . When the Standard station closed on February 1, 1971, and Konwinski left Iverson's employment, Iverson thereafter carried himself as the only "Union man" at the Shell station. In April or May 1971, Iverson informed Local 705 Representative Dicks, at the service station on his regular collection call, that he (Iverson) had been advised by GRAMC not to make further payments to Local 705. Dicks exclaimed, "[Are you] going to be a stupid jerk like the rest of these guys and not pay ?" Iverson indicated he would await the outcome of proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board. Dicks threatened him that "When this [is] all over and when [you] lost the suit ... [I am] going to come back and put everybody in [your] station in the union and [I am] going to bury [you] people." In 1970, the approximate gross volume of business at Iverson's Shell station was $250,000; at his Standard station, $175,000. Upon the basis of Raymond J. Iverson's uncontradicted, credited testimony I find that the allegations of the complaint concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 36. Instance 36: Ivy Service Station (7100 [South] King Drive, Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness, Jeff Ivy-again, as invariably-without contradiction-testi- fied that he acquired and has owned and operated the Arco (i.e., Atlantic-Ridgefield; formerly Sinclair) service station at 7100 [South] King Drive, Chicago, since August 28, 1968. When he took the station over from the previous owner (Robinson, who had had a contract with Local 705),63 he retained two of the tatter's employees (Strong and McDougall [McDougle]), but they stayed only temporarily (McDougall for only about a month and Strong until March 1969). Ivy also brought in his two brothers, Lawrence and Fred, as equal partners; all three brothers thus owned and operated the station as equal partners. In or about September 1968-within a month after Ivy so Konwmslu authoraedly gave station employees orders; and, although paid it dues and has prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in that he had no power to hire and fire, his recommendations on that score carried station's front window since at least 1969, and signed a formal, express considerable weight. bargaining authorization designation to it on September 21, 1970. Si Iverson had been a member of Local 705 for 15 or more years. ss See fn. 23, supra 82 Iverson had first joined GRAMC at his Shell station (only) in 1%3, TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 acquired the station-he was visited by Local 705 Business Agents Jackson and Gilmore, who urged him to sign up with that Union. Ivy asked for "time." The two returned a week later, telling Ivy it was time or else they would "stop the gas trucks from coming in the yard." Ivy pleaded for more time. They returned the following week on the same mission, this time additionally demanding that Ivy "give [us) at least two men" or else they would "stop your gas trucks from coming in and put pickets across the driveway so the trucks can't come in." Under these circumstances, Ivy signed the preprinted Local 705 "contract" which was urged upon him.64 At no time did Gilmore, Jackson, or any other Local 705 representative claim to represent any employee. After Strong left his employ in March 1969, Ivy (i.e., Jeff Ivy) placed himself "in" the Union as the union "member" replacement for Strong. At no time since March 1969, has any employee at the station been a member of Local 705; the only members were Jeff and Fred Ivy, part owners of the station. In the latter part of 1969, Local 705 representative Gilmore remarked to Ivy that he knew that Ivy had more than two employees but would "go along" with the existing arrangement since "you are a good guy." Ivy had joined GRAMC around September or October 1968 and on February 25, 1970, executed a formal authorization expressly designating it as his bargaining representative; and he displayed its distinctive emblem prominently in his front window until it was broken in 1972. In November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Gilmore visited the station a number of times pressing for renewal of the "contract" until Ivy's other brother, Edmund (a one- third partner), signed it. Thereafter, on Gilmore's demand that Jeff Ivy sign it because Edmund Ivy was "not on the lease," Jeff Ivy signed it. At this time, in addition to the three Ivy brothers who owned the station, the station had four full-time employees, none of whom belonged to the Union-although they knew the station had a "contract" with Local 705; the only members being Jeff and Fred Ivy, as shown by the Local 705 Business Agent's own reports and remittance forms. The station's gross business volume in 1970 was approximately $200,000 (65 percent from gasoline sales). Upon the basis of Jeff Ivy's uncontradicted credited testimony, I find that the complaint allegations concerning him and his service station have been established by substantial credible evidence. 37. Instance 37: Jackson Service Station (147 W. 79th St., Chicago, I11.) On like allegations, the uncontradicted testimony, of General Counsel witness, Ray Jackson, establishes that he opened and has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 147 West 79th Street, Chicago, since May 1966, at which time he hired two full-time employees. Around August 1966 Jackson received a visit at his station from Local 705 Business Agent George Gilmore, with a preprinted Local 705 contract "for [you, Jackson ] to sign it " At Gilmore's insistence, Ivy gave hun the names of his brother, Fred (a one-third partner), and his mechanic, Strong (who left his employ in 245 and that was it . . . the other dealers [have] already signed the contract, so therefore [you] might as well sign it." So Jackson signed it. At this time none of Jackson's employees was in the Union and Gilmore did not even claim to represent any of them. A month later (September 1966) Gilmore returned, announcing that Jackson's employees "would have to join the union." Jackson demurred, calling in his employee brother, who said he did not wish to join. Gilmore told him, "In order for you to work here, [you'll have] to join the Union." Jackson's employees declined to join Local 705. When Gilmore again revisited the station in Decem- ber, this time warning Jackson to "have [your] men fill out these cards or else ," Jackson directed four of his employees that they "must sign them" and they did. At this time, Jackson had 11 (7 full- and 4 regular part-time) employees. Around November 1970, Gilmore presented Jackson with a new preprinted Local 705 contract for 1970-73, for signature. At this time Jackson had only two employees "in" the Union and told Gilmore he had heard that some other stations had only one employee "in" the Union. Gilmore replied that Jackson need not have more than two "in" as he then had. So Jackson signed the 1970-73 "contract"; at this time, he had nine (five full- and four regular part-time) employees, with only two "in" the Union. Although Jackson had paid the wage scales described in the 1967-70 contract, he did not pay the wages specified in the 1970-73 contract. At any rate in 1970, Jackson himself paid to Local 705 "dues" for his employees-including former employee Seymore, who was to Gilmore's knowledge no longer in Jackson's employ- -without deducting it from their wages. Jackson has been a member of GRAMC since 1966, and on August 17, 1970, he executed an express bargaining authorization designation to it. The gross volume of his station's business in 1970 was around $700,00080 percent from gasoline sales). Upon the basis of Ray Jackson's credited uncontradicted testimony, I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 38. Instance 38 : Jervier Service Station (Jackson & Kedzie, Chicago, Ill.) There are analogous allegations in the complaint concerning Dennis Jervier, whose testimony is, once again, uncontradicted. Jervier owned and operated the Shell Oil service station at Jackson and Kedzie (228 South Kedzie), Chicago, from April 1968 to September 8, 1971. In February 1970, after Jervier had learned from two of his employees that they had repeatedly refused to join Local 705 when solicited to do so at the station by Local 705 Business Agent Jackson, Jervier was himself ap- proached at the station by Jackson who announced to him that he "would have to have a man from that station join the union." Jervier told Jackson he would talk it over with his father, which he did. Later that month or early the next month (March 1970) Jackson telephoned Javier and told March 1969). 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him that he was "in hot water over the station [and] must have a man from that station [in the Union]." Jervier replied that it was up to the employees. About a week later, Jervier asked his employee Reed to wash a car. Reed refused, claiming to be ill. Jervier told Reed to go home if he was ill. Reed left, saying, "[I'11] show [you] something" and would "fix" Jervier. When Reed returned later that day, Jervier told him he was fired. Reed thereupon told Jervier he could not fire him since he had joined the Union; however, he displayed no evidence thereof. Later that day, Local 705 Business Representative Jackson visited Jervier, informed him that Reed (who had been discharged) had joined Local 705, and demanded that Jervier sign a contract with Local 705. Jervier refused. Jackson thereupon pulled his car to the curb in front of the station (but not so as to block the entrance), with a "Local 705 IB of T on strike-unfair labor practices" sign, joined by Reed who commenced picketing with a similar sign, continuing until midnight. At 6 a.m. the following morning, Reed was there again with the same sign. Around 6 p.m., Jackson came in (with Reed still outside) and again stated to Jervier that Reed had joined the Union and that Jervier would have to sign a contract with Local 705 and put Reed "back to work" and pay Reed's Local 705 initiation fee and Local 705 health and welfare fees retroactively to January 1, 1970. Under these circum- stances, Jervier signed the preprinted Local 705 contract, which was in no way negotiated, and restored Reed to his job, at the same time complying with Jackson's demand to pay an initiation fee as well as health and welfare "contributions" to Local 705 on Reed retroactively to January 1, 1970. Jackson subsequently called regularly at the station for collections and to speak with Reed. In October 1970, Jackson presented a new preprinted 3- year contract to Jervier for signature. Stating that GRAMC-which he had by express writing on September 21, 1970, designated as his bargaining representative, and whose distinctive emblem was prominently displayed in his service station window-was bargaining for him, Jervier declined to sign it. Jackson said that GRAMC had lost or would lose its case and warned that "the union always comes out first, comes out on top." In November 1970, Jackson returned, again for Jervier's signature on the "new contract," this time also presenting to and asking Jervier to sign a paper deauthorizing GRAMC to act as his bargaining agent. After a telephone conversation with a GRAMC official, in the presence of Jackson, Jervier refused to sign either the deauthorization slip or the contract. Jackson warned him, "There is no win and what does around, comes around . . . . [You're] not doing [your]self any good for not signing." Soon thereafter (December 9, 1970)-still in the context of continuing refusal by Jervier to heed Jackson's demands to sign a ..new contract" with Local 705-Jervier instructed his employee, Reed, to supply customers with dimes at their request when needed for the use of the restroom; but Reed refused. Later, when a woman-apparently a regular caller-telephoned Reed again and Jervier asked her not to call so often, Reed called Jervier a "dirty black f--ter." When Jervier consulted his attorney as well as a GRAMC executive about this, he was advised to fire Reed; when Jervier reported it to Local 705, he was warned to "be careful with that guy." Nevertheless, Jervier decided to discharge Reed that evening and arranged for police protection. When Reed was then discharged by Jervier in the presence of the police, Reed (who lived across the street from the station) insisted he could not be fired because he was a member of Local 705 and that he would let the "union put [you] out of business." When Local 705 Representative Jackson called at the station on December II about Reed, and Jervier explained the situation to him, Jackson told Jervier that Reed "cannot be fired except for theft" and Jackson insisted that Reed be reinstated. Jackson was unimpressed when Jervier read him the Local 705 contract provision (G.C. Exh. 5, p. 5, art. XVI) regarding the employer's right to dismiss an employee for misconduct, but added that "a hundred dollars could solve the whole problem." When Jackson telephoned Jervier on December 14 and again insisted that Reed would have to be reinstated or that he would file a charge with the NLRB, Jervier again declined to reinstate him. On December 17, however, Jackson drove up to the station with a car equipped with a sign stating "Local 705 of IB of T, on strike for unfair labor practices," and Reed started to picket with a like sign. This continued, from 6 a.m. to midnight, until January 6, 1971-with Local 705 Business Agents Jackson and Gilmore visiting Reed and other picketers there. During this period, early one morning around Christmas, as a gasoline truck was about to turn into the station, Reed joined by three or four other individuals approached the gasoline truck driver and stood in front of the truck-interdicting its entrance to the station-and told the driver, "Call your supervisor," at the same time handing him a card. Jervier called the police. When Reed nevertheless continued to try to halt the truck, he was physically restrained by the police and the gasoline delivery was made. Other attempts were made by Local 705 to halt deliveries to Jervier's station; on three occasions, fuel oil delivery trucks were interfered with and stopped, and on one occasion Reed in the presence of Gilmore, threatened to shoot Jervier. During this period (December 17, 1970-January 6, 1971) the station's business declined 50 percent. Meanwhile, also around Christmas, Jervier was visited by IGDA official, Jacobs,65 who indicated that he had better "settle" and that the Union wanted $2,800 "backpay" for "his" employees on a list displayed by Jacobs. However, nobody on that list except one part-time youngster was in Jervier's employ; Jervier said so and refused to pay. Shortly thereafter Local 705 Representatives Jackson and Gilmore-seated in a car with Reed-told Jervier that he would obtain gasoline deliveries at once if he signed the contract with Local 705; but Jervier continued to refuse. On January 6, 1971, Jervier was told by IGDA official, Jacobs-who had also told Jervier that he was formerly an agent of Local 705 and had "connections" with Local 705, and that the GRAMC emblem on Jervier's station window had caused Jervier a "lot of trouble" which could be ended if the emblem were removed-that Local 705 Executive Peick had indicated that the $2,800 demand would be 65 See fns. 29 and 30, supra. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 247 dropped if Jervier signed the union contract. However, Jervier continued to refuse to sign the contract. Thereupon, Jacobs called in a Shell Oil representative; and when the latter-in the presence of Jacobs, Jackson, and Gilmore -advised Jervier to sign the contract, Jervier-who had been totally without gasoline for almost a week or more---capitulated and signed up. Jacobs then repeated that "the sticker [i.e., GRAMC window emblem] is [what is causing you] a lot of trouble . . . . Once the sticker is removed, [you] will have no more trouble," and assured him that all "charges" would be dropped if Jervier joined IGDA, which Jervier thereupon did. At this time, none of Jervier's employees was in the Union. Reed was never reinstated into his employ. However, since Local 705 Representative Jackson had told Jervier that he "must put a man in [the Union but you] won't have to pay this man union wages," Jervier "put" his employee, Randall, "into" Local 705, paying his initiation fee as well as dues.68 Jervier's gross 1970 receipts at the station were around $193,000 (80-85 percent from gasoline sales). Upon the basis of the foregoing credited67 testimony of Dennis Jervier, uncontradicted by any witness, I find that the allegations of the complaint concerning him have been established, in sufficient material essence as there set forth,68 by substantial credible evidence. 39. Instance 39: Jones Service Station (18101 S. Halsted St., Homewood, I11.) On similar allegations, General Counsel witness, Rex Jones, testified to an account substantially the same as most of the other gasoline service station dealers. Jones opened the Shell Oil service station at 18101 (or 10081) South Halsted Street, Homewood, Illinois. in June 1967 with a brand new complement of employees, and has owned and operated it since. In the summer of 1967, shortly after Jones opened the station, he was visited by two Local 705 emissaries. Patting a blue snubnosed revolver which he carried in a belt holster and displayed to Jones in the presence of Jones' son, David, one of the Local 705 emissaries-Jacobs-said to Jones, "Everybody on the street [is ] in the union and [you are] going to be whether [you] liked it or not." Jacobs then asked for a "get together" with Jones' employees, to which Jones acceded. When this took place, the employees, however, indicated they did not want to join Local 705 and would not pay dues to it. Jacobs nevertheless threatened Jones that if he did not sign up with Local 705 he would picket and also cause Jones expense at Jones' other station. Although Jones had told Jacobs he had five (three full- and two part-time) employees-aside from himself-at the station, Jacobs agreed that Jones could have only one union member at the station and that this could be Jones' son, David, who, on hearing this, was "ready to fight about it." Nevertheless, Jones paid his son's "dues"-without deducting it from his salary-to Jacobs or the other Local es Jervier also paid for a vacation for Reed, who, as stated, never reentered his employ 87 I have considered the contents of Jervier's pretrial statements, given, as explained by him without contradiction, while he was in the process of waiting on customers at his service station 68 Respondent's motion to dismiss in whole or in part paragraph "XII 705 collector each 3 months, in cash. Jones had not signed the 1964-67 "contract" with Local 705 since it was about to expire; but later that year (1967) he was presented with a 1967-70 contract to sign. When Jones declined to sign it, he was told by the Local 705 spokesman that if he (Jones) wanted a "sweetheart contract" like the other dealers, with only one employee as union member and to avoid picketing, he had better sign, so he did. Although Jones has continued to have a workforce of five or six (three or four full- and two part-time) employees at the station, at no time has any employee other than his son, David, been a "member" of Local 705. And, although his son, David, has been away in England with the U.S. Air Force for 3-1/2 years, Jones has continued to pay "dues" to Local 705 on him (and him alone) as a station employee. Jones has been a member of GRAMC since 1967 at his aforedescribed station; and, additionally on April 30, 1970, executed an express authorization designation to GRAMC as his bargaining agent. In the fall of 1970, Local 705 Business Representative Spizzeri-who had been told by Jones or knew that Jones was a member of GRAMC-in- formed Jones that there was a "problem" between Local 705 and GRAMC and that if Jones withdrew from membership in GRAMC "you [Jones] would be in a much better position to keep [your] status with sweetheart contracts . . . . you'd still be able to keep [only] one employee [as a union member]" instead of a "full complement" of union members . Spizzeri at the same time gave Jones a withdrawal form for Jones to sign, withdraw- ing from GRAMC. Jones declined to sign it. Spizzeri threatened to picket the station if Jones did not "go along." Jones signed the new Local 705 contract for 1970-73, in February 1971. He then had five (three full- and two regular part-time) employees, with his son, David, still overseas and the only union "member." 69 The gross volume of Jones' business at the foregoing station in 1970 was approximately $392,000; and the cost of his gasoline purchases there for the same period was about $269,000. Rex Jones' testimony also was totally uncontradicted, Respondent wholly unexplainedly failing to produce any witness to controvert it in any way. Crediting Jones' testimony, I find that the complaint allegations pertaining to him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 40. Instance 40: Kallas Service Station (246 W. Lake St., Addison, Ill. and 502 South Fifth Ave., Maywood, Ill.) On similar complaint allegations, General Counsel witness, Eugene ("Gene") Dennis Kallas, testified that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 246 West Lake Street, Addison (a western suburb of Chicago), Illinois, since November 4, 1970; and that prior thereto he owned and operated a Clark Oil Service Station (ccX3)" of the complaint, which was and is accordingly deemed amended to conform to the litigated proof, was denied at the trial. 89 Jones was unable to identify an alleged signature on a Local 705 dues- checkoff card, produced at the hearing, as that of his son , David. However, Jones testified that he made regular payments, out of his own pocket, to the Union for David's "dues." 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at 502 South Fifth Avenue , Maywood (also a western suburb of Chicago), Illinois. Kailas opened the Addison location with six (2 full and 4 regular part-time) employees. Toward the end of January 1970 Local 705 Business Representative Dicks visited Kailas at his Maywood station (which Kailas had recently opened) and notified him that he "should have two men in the union ." Dicks did not claim to represent any employee . When Kailas explained he was new, he and Dicks "agreed to have [only] one man" in the Union. Kailas accordingly gave his employee, Cooper, a Local 705 card (which Kailas had received from Dicks) to sign, telling Cooper that "the union wanted one man represented out of my station and that [you] would be the one man." Cooper signed. About 3 months later, Cooper was replaced at the station by employee Loucks, who on Kailas' instruction but after some hesitancy also signed a Local 705 card . At this time, Kailas still had six employees, only Loucks being "in" the Union as aforedescribed. Kailas joined GRAMC in January 1970 at the Maywood location; when he moved to the Addison location (November 1970), he continued as a member, and has at all times prominently displayed on the station door the distinctive emblem of GRAMC. Additionally, on August 5, 1970, he executed an express authorization designating GRAMC as his bargaining agent. In October 1970, at the Maywood station, Local 705 Representative Dicks asked Kailas if he had "any employees to put in the union." Kailas said no. Dicks presented a 1970-73 preprinted Local 705 contract for Kailas' signature, warning him that if he failed to sign it the Union would set up a picket line and there would be no gasoline deliveries to the station since the gasoline truckdrivers belonged to the same Union, Local 705. Later that month, Dicks returned and asked Kailas if he had a man to "put in" the Union. Kailas thereupon asked his employee, Connors, if he wished to join the Union; Connors said no. Dicks warned that Local 705 would "make trouble" for Kailas if he did not sign up, specifically mentioning picketing . Kailas informed Dicks he was moving to the Addison location . At this time, none of Kallas' employees at Maywood belonged to the Union; and at no time had more than one employee there been "ins' the Union. On November 4, 1970, Kailas moved to the Addison location, taking with him his two full-time employees (Connors and Curly) from Maywood, and hiring four part- time employees . Kailas did not take over any employee of the former operation at Addison. A few days after he opened Addison, Kailas was visited by Local 705 Business Agent Peter Alex, who asked if he had any men in the Union. When Kailas said no, Alex presented a preprinted Local 705 contract to him and said if he did not "put" two men "in" the Union he "would have a picket line formed and no gasoline deliveries." Referring to the GRAMC emblem- in the station window, Alex said a sign like that was "misrepresenting members and misleading you in a lot of directions [and] would cause more harm than good to be a member of this association .... With a sign like that there in the window could cause a broken window," and that it would be "to [your] best interest [to] withdraw membership and [you] wouldn't have any problem." Alex and Kailas agreed that Kailas need "put in" the Union only one employee. When Alex returned a week later, Kailas gave him a union card for Connors (who had reluctantly placed his signature on it only on Kallas' express direction to do so) and signed the 1970-73 contract. At this time, Kailas had six (two full- and four part-time) employees, with Connors as aforesaid the only one "in" the Union. At no time had Alex even claimed to represent any employee. In mid-March 1971 , on a call to the Addison station to make collections, Local 705 Spokesman Alex asked Kailas to "put" another man or Kailas himself "into" the Union. When Kailas replied that he could not afford it and also that he himself should not be in the Union, Alex said, "Okay, we will let it be with Connors" but that "[I'll] be back at a later date." Kailas has not seen Alex or any other Local 705 emissary since then.7° The dross revenues of the Addison station for 1971 were approximately $312,000 (70 percent from gasoline sales). Upon the foregoing credited uncontradicted testimony of Eugene Dennis Kailas, I find that the allegations concerning him have been established, essentially as set forth in the complaint, by substantial credible evidence. 41. Instance 41: King & Abron Service Station (5733 W. North Ave., Chicago, Ill.) The Shell Oil service station at 5733 West North Avenue, Chicago, has been owned from April 30, 1970 (since which time until the end of that year it grossed around $150,000, about 80-85 percent from gasoline sales, on the basis thereof having a projected annual gross revenue of around $225,000), by Nora King and Charles Abron as equal partners. Both testified without contradiction. Within about 2 weeks after King and Abron took over the station in question (with some of its employees, none known to be union members), they were visited by Local 705 Business Agent James Jackson with a preprinted Local 705 contract. In response to Jackson's question, King informed him that he had three full-time employees. Jackson thereupon said that he would "have to have at least two into the union." When Jackson mentioned the wages, King refused, stating he could not afford it. A few weeks later, around June 1, 1970, Jackson returned and the foregoing scene was essentially replayed , with the addition this time, however, that Jackson yelled to the employees (not by name) the question whether they wanted to join the Union; one (Jimmie Irons) did not answer, and the other (Mike Williams) said no. King did not sign the contract and asked Jackson to leave. Several weeks later-around mid-June 1970-Jackson returned, this time accompanied by another individual, and again asked King to sign the Local 705 contract. Again King refused. Jackson then warned King that he would picket the station and "stop the gasoline deliveries from coming across the drive," mentioning another station TO As has been mentioned, the onginal charge herem was filed on November 18, 1970. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 where he had done this, but that if King signed the contract he "would let [you] go for one man being in the union for the time being." Once again King asked Jackson to leave. However, when Jackson returned around July 1, renewing the proposed deal that if King signed the contract the station need have only "one man in the union," King signed up. Thereupon, when Jackson asked King "What employee did [you] want[ed] to put in" the Union, King designated his mechanic, Jimmie Irons, who was thus assigned into the Union . Jackson then informed King that King would "be responsible for paying the [union] dues of this employee." At this time, the station had three full- and two part-time employees. Irons, inducted into the Union as described, remained in the station's employ for only about 8 or 10 months; but he (Irons) was the only union employee at the station. At no time did Jackson in any way indicate he represented any of the station employees, nor did he ever state the station's previous owner had had a contract with the Union. On September 11, 1970, King became a member of GRAMC and designated it as his collective-bargaining representative, and he has since then continuously dis- played its distinctive emblem prominently in the station window. In January or February 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Jackson visited the station with a new 3-year preprinted Local 705 contract which he asked King to sign. When King inquired and Jackson informed him of the pay scale, King refused to sign. Jackson returned a few weeks later with an associate whom he identified as another union business agent. This time Jackson spoke to King's partner, Charles Abron, who likewise refused to sign the contract, until Jackson threatened to picket and cut off gas deliveries to the station, whereupon Abron signed up, without any discussion of the contract terms or provisions. At this time, the station had three full- and two part-time employees, with only one employee-O. B. Marshall-"put in the Union" by King to replace Irons after the latter left. Respondent produced no witness and adduced no proof to controvert any of the foregoing. Crediting the described testimony of General Counsel witnesses, Nora King and Charles Abron, I find that the complaint allegations concerning them and their gasoline station have been established by substantial credible evidence. 42. Instance 42: Kobler Service Station (5753 W. North Ave., Chicago, Ill.) On like allegations, General Counsel witness, George Kobler, testified that he has owned and operated the Shell Oil service station at 5753 West North Avenue, Chicago for 21 years and has been a member of GRAMC during all of that time, displaying its distinctive membership emblem on the window of his station's front door for some years until it was broken a few months ago; and that on September 16, 1970, he signed an express bargaining representative designation to GRAMC. Around the end of October 1970, Teamsters Local 705 Business Agent Daniel Ligurotus visited the station a number of times with a 1970-73 preprinted contract for Kobler to sign. Kobler each time told Ligurotus he would 249 not do so until an upcoming meeting with GRAMC. On the third such visit, Ligurotus warned Kobler, "I have always left you alone, I have never bothered you, so you better sign the contract . . . . [We] wouldn't bother [you) if you sign[ed ] the contract .... [I] would leave you alone ... [otherwise I] could shut off [your] gas deliveries." Under these circumstances, Kobler signed the "contract." Ligurotus did not claim to represent a majority of, or indeed any, employees. At this time, Kobler had five (two full- and three regular part-time) employees, with only one (Colarrous, who did not want to join, but did so only on Ligurotus' insistence that he "had to have one man in the union"), in Teamsters Local 705 . During all of 1968 and 1969, Kobler had likewise had not more than one employee in the Union, out of a complement of five or six (two full- and three or four part-time) employees. At no time did Ligurotus ask Kobler how many employees he had. At no time has Kobler observed any provision (including required wages) of his "contract" with Local 705-including "Union wages" to Colarrous. At no time has Ligurotus been observed talking to any of the employees; however, he called at the station quarterly to pick up "collections" from Kobler. Although Kobler paid these "Union dues" for Colarrous, at no time did he deduct them from Colarrous' pay. In the year 1970, Kobler's station produced a gross revenue of $ 180,000 (85 percent from gasoline sales). George Kobler's testimony was uncontradicted and is credited. I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 43. Instance 43: Kool Service Station (3541 S. California Ave., Chicago, I11.) Upon substantially identical allegations, General Coun- sel witness, Milton Kool, Jr., testified that he owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 3541 South California Avenue, Chicago, from September 24, 1970, to April 21, 1972, and joined GRAMC on November 12, 1970. In early October 1970, Local 705 Business Agent George White called at Kool's station and asked him if he was "going to get into the Union." Kool responded affirmative- ly. White asked him if he belonged to any dealers' association. When Kool said no, White produced a membership card in IGDA ("Illinois Gasoline Dealers Association"-supra fns. 29 and 30), and told Kool that Local 705 and IGDA got along well. Kool left the IGDA membership form along with other papers for Kool's signature. At this time, Kool told White that Kool was and wanted to continue as a member of Local 705, but White told him not to worry about it and that he need not be; and Kool made a Local 705 "health and welfare" contribution on one of his employees, Wolf. The following day, Kool was visited by representative Blair of IGDA, who informed him that Local 705 Business Agent White had called and notified Blair that Kool was "available for membership." Blair told Kool that he (Blair) and White had "a very good working relationship." Kool thereupon made an initial dues payment to Blair. In mid-November 1970, Kool attended a meeting of GRAMC with some other dealers 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and joined GRAMC. Kool has since then maintained membership in GRAMC, and has had no association with IGDA. In late November and in December 1970, Kool was approached three or four times by Kool to sign a 1970-73 contract with Local 705. Kool refused, notwithstanding White's threats to picket and "tie you up" and "dry[ing] you up." On about the third such visit, among other things, White called Kool a "hardnose punk" and again threat- ened to picket, "dry [you ] up," and force him to pay "back dues" and other moneys "on all [your] employees." Kool, however, continued to refuse to sign up, stating to White that it would be illegal since Local 705 did not represent any of his employees. At no time did White indicate he represented any of Kool's employees. At this time (September-December 1970), Kool had six or seven (three full- and three or four regular part-time) employees. Although this is uncontroverted, it is stipulated that on July 9, 1970-i.e., prior to the time Kool took over the station -Local 705 had in its possession one (and only one) membership and representation designation card, that of Wolf, who continued to work for Kool only until July 1971; and that Kool had been a member of Local 705 only prior to his taking the station over in September 1970. Kool's station grossed about $85,000 from September 24 through December 1970; and around $350,000 in 1971. At no time did Kool sign a contract with Local 705. The foregoing facts are established by the uncontradict- ed testimony of Milton Kool, Jr., which is credited. Upon the basis thereof, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Kool have been established by substantial credible evidence. 44. Instance 44: Lacefield Service Station (503 S. Mannheim Rd., Bellwood, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness Robert ("Bobby") Lacefield testified that he has owned and operated the Martin Oil service station at 503 South Mannheim Road, Bellwood (a suburb of Chicago), Illinois, since February 12, 1970, prior to which he was manager thereof for Martin Oil Company. At the time Lacefield took the station over, he kept all eight employees, who (together with Lacefield) were members of Local 705, which had a contract with Martin Oil Company covering them. In February 1970, Lacefield was visited by Local 705 Business Agent William ("Gene") Dicks, who informed him that he (Lacefield) had "inherited the union contract from Martin Oil," and presented him with a Local 705 contract which Lacefield signed. As of this time, seven of Lacefield's eight employees (four full- and four regular part-tune; excluding himself) were or had been members of Local 705. Although Lacefield indicated that he would keep employees in the Umon, he told Dicks he could not afford to pay union scale. Dicks indicated that this as well as who would be kept or placed into the Umon "is between [you] and [your] men." Dicks did not state he represented any of the employees, but left union dues-checkoff cards for them to sign. Thereafter, Lacefield presented one of these cards to his employee Trumble, who in signing the card stated to Lacefield that he was doing so to "keep the union off [your] back." In asking his employees Setek, Chirbas, and Thompson to sign the union cards, Lacefield explained to them that he "needed to put somebody in the union to keep them off my back." Setek, Chirbas, and Thompson signed the union cards for Lacefield, stating to Lacefield that they were doing so "as a favor to (you]." Employee Nendze likewise signed a Local 705 card. At no time did Lacefield observe any provision of his contract with Local 705. However, he paid his employees' Local 705 union dues, which Local 705 Business Agent Dicks called periodically to collect. Lacefield joined GRAMC in August 1970, designating it as his bargaining representative and since then displaying prominently in his station window its distinctive member- ship emblem. In October 1970, Lacefield stopped paying union dues and health and welfare contributions to Local 705 on his employees (at that time, Lacefield's "dues" payments on them were effective through December, but the health and welfare contributions only through October 1970). Lace- field so informed his employees and they did not object. In November 1970, Dicks visited at the station and, placing a preprinted Local 705 contract on the desk with no suggestion of bargaining, told Lacefield it was "contract time again." When Lacefield asked him to leave it for his perusal, Dicks said he could not do so but would return. Dicks returned later that month with the preprinted contract. Lacefield informed him, "No way . . . . I can't afford to pay the union scale." Dicks told Lacefield that he (Lacefield) would have to "get the increase from the [Martin Oil] company." After calling the Company, Lacefield told Dicks that he was unable to obtain it from the Company. At this time, Lacefield had 10 (6 full- and 4 regular part-time) employees. On January 13, 1971, Dicks revisited the station and again asked Lacefield to sign the preprinted Local 705 contract. When Lacefield continued to insist that he could not afford it, Dicks again suggested that Lacefield call the Martin Oil Company, which Lacefield again did without success, so informing Dicks. Dicks thereupon stated, "Well, we will just have to picket the station"; but after speaking to several employees, Dicks told Lacefield that it would be necessary "to get some outside help to take care of the picketing [since] none of [your] boys will picket." Subsequently Dicks continued to press Lacefield to sign the preprinted contract, with Lacefield continuing to decline. At these times, Dicks did not claim to represent any of Lacefield's employees (eight or nine, five full- and four regular part-time; it will be recalled that Lacefield had discontinued paying dues on them in the preceding October). Without claiming to represent any of the employees, Dicks nonetheless warned Lacefield that he would eventually have to sign the contract with Local 705 since the Union's lawyers "would make asses out of the GRAMC lawyers." Although Lacefield was unable to recall or account for signing a 1970-73 preprinted contract with Local 705, nevertheless such an allegedly signed document was produced and identified. It is, however, totally undisputed that at no time did Lacefield pay any of his employees the wages called for by this or any other Local 705 "contract" or observe any other provision thereof, and that he TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 251 himself for a period of time paid employees' "Union dues" without deduction from their wages. (Lacefield's income tax return shows the amount of $1,363 paid in part to the Union.) Lacefield's gross income for 11 months of 1970 at the station was approximately $750,000 (80-85 percent from gasoline sales). Upon the foregoing facts, established by credited testimony of Robert Lacefield, uncontradicted by any witness, I find that the allegations of the complaint consistent with the foregoing have been established by substantial credible evidence. himself (i.e., La Fata) was the only "Union member." At no time did the Union indicate it represented any of his employees. At no time did La Fata observe any provision of any of the "contracts" he signed with the Union; at no time did the Union indicate it was enforcing any contract provision. La Fata's gross business revenue at his station in 1970 was $70,000 (about 60 percent from gasoline sales). Paul La Fata's testimony was uncontradicted and uncross-examined, and is credited. I find that the com- plaint allegations concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 45. Instance 45: La Fata Service Station (5362 W. Division St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon complaint allegations of the pattern described, General Counsel witness, Paul La Fata, Jr., testified that he has owned and operated the Arco Oil service station at 53 West Division Street, Chicago, for about 11 years. Originally Paul La Fata owned the station in equal partnership with his brother Philip La Fata, who remained for only a year and a half but while there became a member of Local 705 although neither of the station's two employees joined. When the partnership was dissolved and Philip La Fata stepped out and left the station-about 9-1/2 years ago-Paul La Fata became and has since remained the only station "member" of Local 705; at no time has any of his two employees been a member of Local 705. And La Fata has been entering into the usual preprinted "contracts" with Local 705 recognizing it as the exclusive "collective bargaining representative" of all of his employees, while paying to it dues and health and welfare contributions on himself alone. In December 1970, La Fata was visited by a Local 705 spokesman with a "new contract" (1970-73), telling La Fata it was "contract time." When, this time, La Fata refused to sign it, he was warned, "[You will ] have to sign it . . . [otherwise we will] sign [up] all [your] employees ... and it would cost you more, [while ] now . . . it would just take [yourself ]" and "if [you] didn't sign that the truck drivers were union members and they wouldn't come- they wouldn't drive, come across a picket line and [you] wouldn't get any gas deliveries." La Fata nevertheless continued to refuse to sign up. A few weeks later (mid- January 1971), the Local 705 spokesman returned-this time accompanied by an associate-and demanded that La Fata sign the preprinted new "contract" under threat that otherwise he would be picketed and receive no gasoline deliveries. When La Fata pointed out that he belonged to GRAMC (he had joined in October 1965, displayed its distinctive emblem prominently in his station since 1969, and executed an express bargaining authorization designa- tion to it on October 15, 1970), the Local 705 spokesman remarked that "They are on their way out, they won't do [you] much good pretty soon',- and, further, threatened to sign up all of La Fata's employees as Local 705 members and that La Fata would then have to pay dues and health and welfare contributions on all of them instead of just on himself. Under these circumstances, La Fata signed up. At this time he had two full-time employees, neither of them then or at any time were members of the Union, and he 46. Instance 46: Lee Service Station (2675 E. 75th St., Chicago, Ill.) On like complaint allegations , General Counsel witness, William Lee, swore that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 2675 East 75th Street, Chicago, since February 26, 1968, when he took it over with only one of the previous owner's employees (i.e., previous owner's brother, John Shellafax), who remained for only 3 weeks. Lee hired four (two full- and two regular part-time) employees. About a week after he took over the station, Lee was visited by Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri who announced to him that he "want[ed] three men in the union." In compliance with this demand, Lee "put" himself and John Shellafax in, a few weeks later adding-at Spizzeri's renewed insistence-employee Mitchell, who refused to join but whom Lee told he would "have to join the union" and "[You are] in the union." Lee thereafter signed Local 705's contract. When, shortly thereafter, John Shellafax left Lee's employ, Lee "put" his employee Connor "into" the Union in Shellafax's stead. At no time had Spizzeri even claimed to represent any employee, nor was he ever observed talking to any employee. When, subsequently, employees Mitchell and Connors left Lee's employ, Lee "put" others into the Union instead; on one occasion, after Lee gave Spizzeri the name of an employee, Lee saw Spizzeri himself sign the union member- ship card for him. Lee also--in Spizzeri's presence-signed another employee 's name (William Crush) on another Local 705 card. From 1968 to 1970, exclusive of himself, Lee had five or six (three full- and 2-3 part-time) employees. Lee had joined GRAMC in March 1968 and has been displaying its distinctive membership emblem at his station, and on April 21, 1970, he signed an express bargaining agent designation to it. Around the beginning of October 1970, Spizzeri told Lee he was "nuts for sticking with the Gasoline Retailers" (i.e., GRAMC) and put before him for signature a resignation form from GRAMC. In January 1971 Spizzeri presented to Lee a new preprinted Local 705 contract, which Lee refused to sign. Spizzeri thereupon threatened the Union would picket the station and "force [you] to pay health and welfare on [all the employees]" and told Lee that "Most of the other dealers were signing." Lee thereupon signed the contract. At this time, Lee had six (three full- and 3 part-time) employees, with only one (Ronez or Romez) and Lee himself "in" the Union. A contemporary Union Business Agent's report in Spizzeri's handwriting shows proprietor 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lee himself and only employee Ronez as Local 705 members. At no time had Spizzeri asked how many persons were employed at the station. Lee grossed $418,000 (75 percent gasoline sales) at the station in 1970. Again, as in the case of all of General Counsel's witnesses, Lee's testimony was uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning William Lee have been established by substantial credible evidence. 47. Instance 47: Levin Service Station (2700 W. Tuohy, Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, uncontradicted testimony of General Counsel witness, Ben Levin, establishes that he has since 1961 owned and operated the gasoline station at 2700 West Tuohy, Chicago, and since then has been signing "collective bargaining contracts" with Local 705 each 3 years. Since 1961, aside from himself he has had two (I full- and I part-time) employees, with never over one in Respondent Union. At no time has Respondent ever inquired how many persons were employed at the station, nor was any union representative observed talking to any employee, nor was any "contract" provision discussed, nor did the Union ever even claim to represent any employee. In 1967, station owner, Ben Levin, made his son, Fred Levin, his equal partner in the station's ownership; and Fred has remained such. According to Ben Levin's testimony, he saw his son, Fred, at the station on the Saturday prior to the instant hearing, for about an hour, doing the books; prior to that, he saw his son there about 2 months before, to relieve him (his father, Ben) for a few days. In 1968, Local 705 Business Agent Frank Marker presented Ben Levin with a new, preprinted 3-year "collective bargaining agreement" for his signature. Ben Levin signed it. At this time, he had two station employees: Owens full-time and Ludwick part-time. Neither employee was in the Union, nor did Local 705 Business Agent Marker ask if they were nor claim that they were; nor did Marker inquire as to how many employees there were, nor was he observed to speak to any; nor did Marker even claim to represent any employee. At this time, the only possible "member" of Local 705 was Ben Levin's son, Fred Levin, who was not even on the payroll. (Fred Levin put in only 10 hours per month at the station in 1968, not on the payroll. It will be recalled that station owner Ben Levin took his son Fred in as an equal partner in 1967; in 1968, Fred put in only 10 hours per month at the station.) It is uncontroverted that the Local 705 "membership" card of Fred Levinproduced by Respondent under subpena-is not signed by nor otherwise in Fred Levin's handwriting. In 1970, when Local 705 Business Agent Marker presented him with a new preprinted "collective bargain- mg" contract to sign, Ben Levin, before signing it, told Marker that his son, Fred Levin, carried his own insurance and that he, Ben Levin, would "like to get in on the health and welfare." Marker said he would find out and let him know. Subsequently, Marker informed Ben Levin that this would be all right, but to have his son Fred Levin sign the contract so as to indicate that "Fred is the employer and you are the employee." At this time, no station employee was a member of Local 705 (the station had two employees--Owens and Ludwick); however, Ben Levin was paying "health and welfare" contributions on his son Fred Levin-a 50-percent owner who put in only 10 hours per month at the station in 1970 . Again, as previously, Local 705 in no way inquired how many employees there were, nor was observed to have any contact with any employee; nor was any provision of the contract negotiat- ed. And at no time did Levin observe any provision of this (or of any previous) "contract" with Local 705, although he made such payments to Local 705 as it required and regularly collected from him. There is no indication whatsoever that the station employees were ever even aware that a "collective agreement" had been entered into for their "benefit" or in any way affecting them. Levin has been a member of GRAMC from 1961 to 1971, but dropped out in the latter year when GRAMC brought suit against Local 705; in 1972, Levin removed the GRAMC emblem from his station window. In 1970, the Levin station's gross receipts were around $130,000 (90 percent from gasoline sales). As has been indicated, Ben Levin's testimony stands uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been established by substantial credible evidence. 48. Instance 48: Leschkies & Berggren Service Station (800 W. Cermak Rd., Chicago, Ill.) Substantially similar complaint allegations are estab- lished through, again, uncontradicted testimony of General Counsel witnesses, Erwin Leschkies and Reinhold Berg- gren (Berggreen), who have owned and operated the Standard Oil service station at 800 West Cermak Road, Chicago, in partnership since around April 1969. Prior to this partnership, Leschkies had been employed at the station by Berggren, who was then in partnership with one Pemberton; when Leschkies took over the station's ownership in partnership with Berggren there was no hiatus in its operations. At that time (April 1969), there were three persons at the station-Berggren, Leschkies, and employee Flores. All three were "in" the Union: Leschkies having been "put in," without payment of fees or dues at any time, under the previous station ownership (i.e., Berggren & Pemberton) when employee Messner had left; and Flores, who was "put in" the Union when Leschkies became an owner-partner. Local 705 "union dues" were collected regularly by Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri, who never inquired how many employees there were. Employee Flores left the station's employ in December, 1969 and was replaced by Erich Leschkies as a mechanic. Station owner Erwin Leschkies told this to Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri when he called at the station in January 1970. Spizzeri thereupon asked station owner Erwin Leschkies, "Who you going to put in the Union right now," telling him that "There had to be three [in the Union]." So, Erwin Leschkies told Spizzeri to "put" Erich Leschkies into the Union and Spizzeri did so. At no time did Erwin Leschkies ask Erich Leschkies whether he wished to become a member, nor inform Erich he had been TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 made a member, nor did Erich ever sign a membership card. However, payments to Local 705 were thereafter made upon him (Erich Leschkies), as well as upon station owners Berggren and Erwin Leschkies. In October or November 1970, Spizzeri presented a preprinted Local 705 "contract" for 1970-73 to Berggren, telling him, "Here, sign it." Berggren signed it without discussion. At that time, there continued to be three persons at the station-owners Berggren and Erwin Leschkies, and employee Erich Leschkies who had never signed a union application nor been asked nor been told about union membership, but upon all three of whom Berggren and Erwin Leschkies were making regular "payments" to Local 705, without checkoff or wage deduction or authorization of employee. Other than such `payments," at no time did the station owners ever observe any of the "contract" terms. 71 The station-which grossed around $250,000 (about 75-80 percent in gasoline sales) in 1970-had associated itself with GRAMC in September 1969 and commenced to display its distinctive membership emblem in its window in 1970-71. In the latter part of 1971, Berggren notified Spizzeri that he would make no further payments to Local 705. The following day, Spizzeri returned with somebody identified as "a big guy ... six-two, six-three, 200, 220," and invited Berggren into a car. There, Berggren repeated that he would make no further payments to Local 705, giving as his reason that he had been unable to obtain payments on health and welfare coverage for his child. However, when Spizzeri showed him picket signs in the car and threatened to picket the station and stop gasoline deliveries, Berggren agreed to continue to make payments to Local 705. On July 14, 1972, a week before testifying at the instant trial, Berggren told Spizzeri that after taking the matter up with the National Labor Relations Board he would make no further payments to the Union. Spizzeri replied that "The Labor Board [has] nothing to do with the union" and demanded to know the name of the person Berggren had spoken to there. Berggren declined to supply this informa- tion. The foregoing is, once again, totally uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concern- ing Erwin Leschkies and Reinhold Berggren have been established by substantial credible evidence. 49. Instance 49: Marshall Service Station (11555 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon the familiar allegations, 11555 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Clark Oil service station Owner Robert C. Marshall testified that he has operated that station since he acquired it in November 1968 from the former owner, who had a contract with Local 705 and whose seven employees Marshall took over. Prior to this, Marshall had operated another service station on South Stony Island, also in Chicago. Marshall described a previous experience there with Local 705 Business Agent Robert Jacobs who placed two Union 71 However, Station Owner Erwin Leschkies invoked "health and welfare" coverage-presumably designed for employees as intended beneficiaries of usual workmen's union representation-m February 1970. 25.1 "contracts" down on the table, opened up his coat displaying two guns, and asked, "What's it going to be?" Marshall signed the "contract" and placed himself as well as an employee into the Union as "members." In November 1968, soon after he took over his new South Michigan Avenue location , Marshall was visited by Local 705 Business Agent George White, and presented with a new preprinted "contract" for signature. White did not ask him how many employees he had nor did he claim to represent any. Marshall signed up and began making payments to Local 705 on all seven employees. From then (November 1968) to December 1970, although the number of station employees ranged from 7 to 10, the number of Local 705 employees dropped to 1; when a Local 705 employee left the station's employ, Marshall invariably reported it on his remittance forms to the Union, but received no response or comment from the Union. When Local 705 Business Agent White called at the station at the beginning of November 1970, observing a GRAMC emblem in the window, he remarked, "You joined that? .... [You] should know better than to join an outfit like that." (Marshall had been a member of GRAMC since 1961 , and executed an express bargaining authorization designation to it on February 22, 1967.) White told Marshall that the new contracts with Local 705 were "being printed up." Marshall asked him who had negotiated it. White replied, "It's just being printed up." When Marshall said, "I hope the contract reads the right way now," White said, "Don't worry about it, just keep working the way you are working." At no time did White inquire how many employees Marshall had nor what wages he was paying them, nor did White claim to represent any. About 2 weeks later (i.e., November 15, 1970), White returned and presented the preprinted "new contract" (1970-73) with Local 705 for Marshall's signature. When Marshall pointed out that it contained a provision (i.e., 48 hours straight-time instead of time-and-a-half pay after 40 hours) which Marshall regarded as being in contravention of Federal law,72 White began speaking of closing another dealer down who had demurred about signing the new "contract." Upon White's return a few weeks later, Marshall signed the new "contract." At that time, he had 10 (6 full- and 4 regular part-time) employees. However, as established by his remittance form to the Union, in November 1970 he made payment to Local 705 on only one employee (Kennedy), and in December 1970 partially on only three employees (dues and health and welfare on part-time employee Jones; dues only on full-time employee Brown ; health and welfare only on sporadic part-time employee Riley). The gross income of the Marshall Service Station in 1970 was approximately $650,000 (80 percent gasoline sales). Upon the foregoing uncontradicted, credited testimony, I find the complaint allegations concerning Robert C. Marshall established by substantial credible evidence. 72 Marshall testified that he paid time-and-a-half wages to his employees for hours in excess of 40 even though the Local 705 preprinted contract did not so require 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 50. Instance 50: McCann Service Station (3749 N. Ashland, Chicago, Ill.) Upon substantially identical complaint allegations, William Blair McCann, Sr., testified-again, as in all other instances, without contradiction by any witness of Respon- dent-that he has owned and operated the Citgo service station at 3749 North Ashland, Chicago, since October 1967, when he took it over from its former owner and hired a completely new crew of employees. In addition to selling gas and oil, McCann rents trailers at the station. McCann, who had had a previous contract with Local 705, with two employees (one of them his son, William McCann, Jr.) in that Union, on or about April 20, 1968, signed a 1967-70 contract with the Union, but at no time did he observe the wage or any other provision thereof. When Local 705 Business Agent Frank Marker visited the station in April 1969, McCann asked him if Ire (station owner McCann, Sr.) could replace his son (employee McCann, Jr.) as Local 705 union member and obtain health and welfare coverage instead of his son. Marker thereupon arranged to substitute on the union contract the name of McCann, Jr. (employee), as the (purported) station owner so as to indicate the father (McCann, Sr., the station owner) was an employee of the son (McCann, Jr., a station employee).73 Accordingly, when the new (1967-70) preprinted Local 705 contract was prepared, it showed McCann, Jr., as owner; but it is undisputed that it was McCann, Sr., who signed the name of McCann, Jr. From May 1969 until early 1971 the only two Local 705 "members" were McCann, Sr., himself (the station owner) and employee Merkland or Merklin (rehired and a member again in May 1969), although the station had (exclusive of McCann, Sr.) six (four full- and two regular part-time) employees. McCann had been a member of GRAMC since long before owning the station in question, and conspicuously displayed its distinctive emblem in his station window except at such times as the window was broken. In November 1970 Local 705 Business Agent Marker present- ed a new, 1967-70 contract to McCann (Sr.) for his signature. This time, McCann expostulated that employees were not signed up as members of Local 705, which was not entitled to represent them, and that GRAMC was "fighting this thing." Marker's response was, "We have always cooperated with each other like in the case of the health and welfare . . . . I don't think the association [GRAMC] is going to get anyplace with their fight." So, McCann (Sr.) signed the new contract; however, he signed the name of his son (McCann, Jr.), although that son was no longer even connected with the station. At this time, exclusive of himself, there were six (four full- and two regular part- time) station employees, with only one employee (plus McCann himself) in the Union. Likewise, again, Marker in no way inquired concerning the number of employees, their wages, or otherwise, nor did he even claim to represent them. And at no time has McCann observed the wage or other provisions of the 1970-73 Local 705 "contract. " The 1970 gross income of the McCann service station was approximately $150,000, of which 40 percent was from gasoline sales. Crediting the uncontradicted testimony of William Blair McCann, Sr., I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible evidence. 51. Instance 51: McCoy Service Station (4701 S. State St., Chicago, Ill.) On like complaint allegations, General Counsel witness Elijah McCoy testified that for about 12 years until he went out of business on April 15, 1971, he owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 4701 South State Street, Chicago. Around Christmas 1967, McCoy was visited by Local 705 Business Agents Jerry Spizzeri and James Jackson, who presented him a preprinted "contract" for his signature. McCoy refused to sign it without at least reviewing it. He was, however, informed by the Local 705 spokesman that "there is nothing to review . It's the regular procedure, usually every three years." When McCoy continued to refuse to sign it without readin* it, the union spokesmen left, but not without Jackson telling McCoy to "put more men in the Union . . . at least half . . . [I'd] be doing [you] a favor by only having two [in the Union]." When Jackson and Spizzeri returned a few weeks later and McCoy continued to refuse to sign the contract, they warned him, "You going to sign it . . . if not [we] going to put [you] out of business." When the same two again returned in March 1968, McCoy signed up (1967-70 "agreement"). At this time, McCoy had at least seven employees, with only two-to the knowledge of Spizzeri and Jackson, since McCoy had allowed them to speak to all employees-in the Union. McCoy hired Union Business Agent Jackson's brother (George Jackson) as an employee in 1970. Respondent concedes that records indicate no evidence of union member- ship of any McCoy employee at any time from January 1, 1970, to July 31, 197174, although throughout 1970 he had 8 to 13 (9 full-time) employees.75 McCoy has been a member of GRAMC since the early 1960's, with its distinctive emblem displayed in his station window; in 1970 he was elected to its board of directors. In September 1970, he was visited by Spizzeri, who presented him with a paper to sign deauthorizing GRAMC to act as his bargaining representative, stating that this would "eliminate you from many problems of the [GRAMC] Association." McCoy declined. Spizzeri thereupon called his fellow Local 705 Business Agent Jackson, who came over, and they both (i.e., Spizzeri and Jackson) threatened McCoy that they would strike him, cut off his gasoline deliveries, and put him out of business , if he did not sign the GRAMC deauthorization form. They then invited him to a restaurant, where this process of "persuasion" continued, with the Local 705 spokesmen threatening McCoy to "make an example out of you . . . since you have been elected to the board of directors of the GRAMC, we know that we got to make an example out of 73 Accordingly, McCann's remittance form to Local 705 for December McCann, Sr (father), as union member. 1968 (G.C. Exh. 458) shows McCann, Sr (father), as the "Employer" and 74 It will be recalled that McCoy gave up the business on April 15, 1971. McCann, Jr. (son), as union member , whereas his remittance form for April 75 Apparently McCoy was under the impression that he had only two, 1969 (G.C. Exh. 459) shows McCann, Jr (son), as the "Employer" and and never over three, employees who were union members. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 255 you first and we set an example with you ... and we will not have any problem with the rest of the Clark dealers." McCoy, however, persisted in his refusal to sign the GRAMC deauthorization paper, as he continued to do when the two Local 705 spokesmen again returned some weeks later. In November 1970, Spizzeri and Jackson entered McCoy's service station, "threw" a preprinted Local 705 "contract" for 1970-73 on his desk, and demanded that he sign it. When McCoy refused, they warned him that if he didn't they would "put you out of business." The two continued periodically to visit McCoy and to renew their warnings and threats for the remainder of 1970 and the early months of 1971 to "put [you] out of business," joined in 1971 by a third Local 705 Business Agent, Gilmore, who told McCoy, "I don't want to see you get hurt ...." The Local 705 agents threatened that McCoy's gasoline deliveries would be cut off if he did not sign the preprinted "contract." Nevertheless, McCoy continued to refuse to sign. The Local 705 spokesmen stated, "We just going to have to make an example out of you for the others." But McCoy never signed up. He went out of business in April 1971, and became an insurance representative. Although his gross revenues from his service station in 1970 were around $750,000 (90 percent from gasoline sales), with a net income of $25-30,000, he gave up his service station business (without compensation for goodwill but only for repayment of merchandise by Clark Oil Company) because, in his words, "I had gotten tired of the threats from these fellows, from Jackson and Spizzeri and Gilmore," as well as the accompanying anonymous telephone calls, parked cars in front of his station, and fears "for the safety of my family." Upon the foregoing credited testimony of Elijah McCoy -as usual, wholly uncontradicted-I find that the complaint allegations concerning him have been estab- lished by substantial credible evidence. 52. Instance 52: Megaris Service Station (5955 W. Higgins, Chicago, Ill.) Upon now familiar complaint allegations, General Counsel witness, Michael George Megans, testified that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 5955 West Higgins, Chicago, since January 1970. Soon thereafter, in March 1970, he was visited by Local 705 Business Agent "Danny" Ligurotus-whom Megans de- scribes as about 6 feet, 5 inches, tall and weighing about 235 pounds-who, presenting him with a preprinted Local 705 "contract," announced to him, "This station has always been a union station and [I want] two men to join." When Megaris asked what would happen if his employees did not want to join, Ligurotus repeated that he "want[ed] two men . . . in the union" and warned Megans that he "would have a hard time getting gas for [your] gas station because the truck drivers are in the union and . . . they can't deliver to non-union stations." Ligurotus did not claim to represent any employee nor did he indicate whom he "wanted" in the Union, but he merely left two Local 705 membership application cards with Megaris. At this time, Megans had four (two full- and two regular part-time) employees at the station. On the same afternoon, Megaris spoke to two of his employees about joining Local 705. One (Mammosser), expressing reluctance to join, did so only at Megaris' insistence that he was "in a jam"; the other (Mains), at first refusing, also did so only on Megaris' urging, explaining that "I'll do it as a favor to you [Megans ]." When Ligurotus called for the membership application cards the next day, Megaris turned them over to him and signed the "contract" but simultaneously told Ligurotus that he would not pay the wage rates thereby required. Ligurotus merely shrugged off the question or comment. Nor did Megaris ever pay that "contract" wage scale. When Megaris' employee, Mammosser, left his employ about a month thereafter, Megaris made payments to the Union on employee Mains only (out of four station employees). On a visit to the station in July 1970, Ligurotus told Megaris that he "want[ed] another man to join the union" and gave Megaris another union card . However, Megaris was unable to get any other employee to "join" Local 705, until, after a lengthy discussion and on Megaris' insistence, one part-time employee-Lumb, a 16-year-old high school student-finally agreed only after Megans gave him a 15- or 20-cent hourly increase. This made two (Mains and Lumb) employees, out of four, in the Union. Megaris had become a member of GRAMC on May 4, 1970, with its distinctive emblem prominently displayed in his station window at all times since. In November 1970, Ligurotus presented Megaris with a preprinted "new contract" for 1970-73. After looking through it, Megaris remarked, "This is really a whole lot of money for me to be paying guys to be pumping gas. Do they really expect me to pay this kind of bread?" Ligurotus replied, "Nobody is really too worried about it" as he "shrugged his shoulders." Other than eventually to Mains, Megaris never paid to any employee the wage scale required by his "contract" with Local705. Megaris' gross income at the station in 1970 exceeded $260,000, of which about 80 percent was from gasoline sales. Michael George Megaris' testimony was uncontradicted and is credited. I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible evidence. 53. Instance 53: Mohr Service Station (7400 W. Harrison St., Forest Park, Ill.) On like allegations, General Counsel witness, Thomas R. Mohr, testified that he has owned and operated the Standard Oil service station at 7400 West Harrison Street, Forest Park (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, since January 1, 1969, when he took it over from his father (Howard R. Mohr), retaining four (two full- and two regular part-time) employees. A few days after he took the station over, he was visited by Local 705 Business Agent William Dicks, who, without asking how many employees he had or anything else about them and without claiming to represent any employee, announced to Mohr that he would "have to carry two people in the Union" and that health and welfare payments were "mandatory." When Dicks returned a few weeks later and the same discussion was repeated, Mohr signed a preprinted 1967-70 "contract" 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with Local 705 and placed himself and one employee (Nicholson) into the Union, so informing Dicks. During all of 1969 and 1970, with four station employees (two full- and two regular part-time) excluding himself, there was only one employee (Nicholson ; later, Teets) in the Union, and also Mohr himself . At no time did Mohr pay union wages nor observe any other provision of his "contract" with Local 705, except to make payments on himself and one employee to Local 705, which were collected regularly at the station by Dicks, who at no time spoke to any employee, nor inquired how many employees there were nor who they were, nor what wages they were being paid. At the end of November 1970, when Dicks presented a new preprinted 3-year "contract" (1970-73) to Mohr for signature, telling him again that he "would still have to have two people in the Union and . . . have to carry health and welfare," Mohr again signed the new "contract" without any discussion and without so much as reading it. Mohr then "put" employee Teets (Nicholson's replace- ment) into the Union without asking him; Mohr later told Teets that he (Mohr) would be "carrying his dues" for him (Teets). At this time, Mohr had four (two full- and two regular part-time) employees, exclusive of himself. At no time did Mohr deduct from employees' wages the payments he made to Local 705, nor did he tell them he had a 1970-73 contract with Local 705. Mohr has been a member of GRAMC and has prominently displayed its distinctive membership emblem on his station door since he took the station over in January 1969. His gross volume of business in 1970 was around $160,000, two-thirds from gasoline sales. Upon the foregoing uncontradicted and credited testi- mony, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Thomas (R.) Mohr have been established by substantial credible evidence. 54. Instance 54: Monroe Service Station (3248 W. Fullerton Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon substantially similar allegations, General Counsel witness James (Jimmy) W. Monroe testified that he has owned and operated the Martin Oil service station at 3248 West Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, since December 1, 1970, for about a year prior to which he had been the station's assistant manager for its previous owner, Paul Napier. When Monroe took over the station, he retained all nine employees there, including Napier himself, of whom four (Napier, Monroe, Bostic, and Cornwell) were Local 705 members with dues checked off. Early in December 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Sam Dibenardo asked Monroe to sign a new union contract (1970-73) and Monroe did so, informing Dibenardo that he had kept all of Napier's employees. Dibenardo told Monroe that he would have to keep four employees in the Union at all times . At this time, Monroe had nine (seven full-time and two regular part- time) employees, and he began paying union dues on three of them; viz, Assistant Manager Napier who was clearly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, Bostic ("Spas- tic") who also had supervisory authority and who took Napier's place as assistant manager when Napier left in the late spring of 1971 , and employee Cornwell; and Monroe also paid Union dues on himself. At no time did Dibenardo claim to represent any employee nor discuss any term of the contract. At this time, Monroe was a member of GRAMC, with its distinctive emblem displayed in the station window. (Knowing that he was soon to take over the station, Monroe had also executed to GRAMC an express bargaining authorization designation on August 14, 1970.) When Dibenardo visited the station in January 1971, he remarked to Monroe that the GRAMC emblem in his window "[isn't] worth the piece of paper it [is ] printed on," and asked Monroe why he had joined it. Returning later in the spring or early summer of 1971, Dibenardo informed Monroe that although he (Dibenardo) was picketing a nearby Martin Oil station, he would not picket Monroe "till further notice." Soon thereafter Dibenardo instructed Monroe to "put" somebody in the Union to replace Napier (assistant manager) who had left. Monroe informed Dibenardo that nobody had been hired to replace Napier and that, furthermore, the employees had told him they did not want the Union any longer, or deductions to be made from their wages for dues or health and welfare, since the Union did nothing for them. When Dibenardo returned the following month (July 1971) for collections, Monroe told him the same thing. Dibenardo warned that if anything happened to any employee's child, the employee could sue Monroe ; and Dibenardo threatened Monroe with pickets and to stop gasoline deliveries . Monroe told Dibenardo to contact GRAMC. The gross income of the Monroe station for 1970 was approximately $745,000, of which 80 percent was from gasoline sales. Upon the foregoing uncontradicted and credited testi- mony of Monroe, I find that, except for the allegation in paragraph XII,(Y),(2) of the complaint concerning threats by Dibenardo to Monroe in December 1970, the remaining allegations of the complaint, substantially as there alleged, concerning James (Jimmy) W. Monroe, have been estab- lished by substantial credible evidence. 55. Instance 55: Morgan Service Station (10301 S. Cottage Grove Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon like allegations, General Counsel witness, Arthur Morgan, testified that in 1965 he and a partner acquired the Shell Oil service station at 10301 South Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago, and that a year later he bought his partner out . Within a month after Morgan and his partner acquired the station, they received a visit from Local 705 Business Agent George Gilmore, who told them to "put somebody in the Union." Morgan said that since there were only himself and his partner there, they could not afford it. A few weeks later, however, several Local 705 spokesmen came to the station and told them to "put somebody in the Union" or else they would "cut [your] gas supply off." At this time, there was only one employee at the station and he was part-time. Faced with the indicated threat, Morgan signed a "contract" with Local 705 and his partner went into that Union, remaining "in" until he left the partnership and station a year later , at which time Morgan himself replaced him as the station's "Union member." Around the end of 1966, Gilmore informed Morgan to get out of the Union and "put somebody [else] TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 in." Accordingly, in Morgan's words, "I picked him [Rasudo]" and merely gave his (Rasudo's) name to Gilmore and "I told him [Rasudo] I was putting him in." There is no indication that Rasudo ever signed a Local 705 membership card and none was produced by Respondent Local 705 at the instant trial notwithstanding a subpoena served upon it. At the time Rasudo's name was thus given to Gilmore, Morgan had two employees---one full and one regular part-time. At no time did Gilmore even claim to represent an employee. From 1974-72 the station usually had four (two full- and two regular part-time) employees. However, since 1%9 station owner Morgan himself has been the only person at the station who has been a member of Local 705. When Gilmore presented Morgan with a new 3-year preprinted contract with Local 705 for 1970-73, in November 1970, although Morgan had four (two full- and two regular part- time) employees, none belonged to Local 705, nor did Gilmore even claim to represent any; Morgan himself was the only member of Local 705. Morgan signed the 1970-73 contract. At no time has he observed any provision of that or his previous "contract" with Local 705 in respect to wages or otherwise ; he pays less than union scale. At no time did he ever tell any of his employees that he had signed a contract with Local 705 or about any of its terms. But he paid Local 705 "dues" and "health and welfare contributions" on himself.7e Morgan joined GRAMC on June 14, 1966, and has displayed its distinctive membership emblem in his station window prominently since at least 1969 or 1970; and around June 1970 he also executed to GRAMC a formal bargaining authorization designation. His 1970 gross revenue at the station was approximately $304,000, 75-80 percent from gasoline sales. Upon the foregoing uncontradicted, credited testimony of Arthur Morgan, I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial evidence. 56. Instance 56: Nestor Service Station (6720 N. Ridge Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon substantially identical allegations, the owner- operator of the Clark Oil service station at 6720 North Ridge Avenue, Chicago, John M. Nestor (Nestor), testified that he acquired that station on September 6, 1968, from a previous owner, none of whose employees he took over. Later that month (September 1%8) Local 705 Business Agent Harty visited the station and asked how many employees Nestor had. When Nestor said two, Harty sa "I will let you ride for the time being." Harty returned around January 1969, and again asked Nestor how many employees he had. When Nestor told him he had two full-time and one part-time, Harty told him to "put one in the union." (At no time then or prior to then had Harty claimed to represent any of Nestor's employ- ees.) Harty handed a union card to Nestor, who "picked" Sylvester Scott to be "in" the Union; thereupon, in Local 705 Business Agent Harty's presence, Nestor signed Scott's name on the Local 705 union membership application dues- 257 checkoff card and returned it to Harty. That night, when Scott came on duty at the station, Nestor told him he was "in" the Union. At no time did he ask Scott whether he wanted to be in the Union. Thereafter, Harty visited the station regularly for Local 705 "collections," which Nestor paid to him. In July 1969 Nestor hired a new employee to replace one (Kurth) who had left. The new employee was Freddie Scott (Sylvester Scott's brother). When Local 705 Business Agent Harty called later that month to make his collections, he asked Nestor how many employees he then had. When Nestor informed him that he had three full- and one part- time, Harty told him he would "have to put another one in the union." Although Nestor first said he could not afford it, he nevertheless later agreed to do so; whereupon, Harty gave Nestor a Local 705 card and Nestor again-as in the case of Sylvester Scott, described above-without asking Freddie Scott whether he wished to be in the Union , signed (i.e., Nestor signed) Freddie Scott's name to the Local 705 card in the presence of Local 705 Business Agent Harty and gave it to Harty. When Freddie Scott's employment at the station terminated in the summer of 1970, he was replaced by John Fishbein, leaving only employee Sylvester Scott in the Union then and since then, since Harty never asked Nestor to place anybody else in the Union instead of Freddie Scott. Nestor has accordingly since then been making payments to Local 705 with relation to Sylvester Scott only. At no time did Nestor deduct from the pay of Sylvester or Freddie Scott an payments of "Union dues" he (Nestor) made to Local 7055 in relation to them. In November or December 1970-when Nestor had three regular employees, with only one (Sylvester Scott) in the Union-Harty presented a new 3-year preprinted Local 705 "contract" to Nestor for signature. Nestor did not sign it, saying he was unable to pay such wages. When Harty returned a week later, a similar interchange occurred, but this time, without further discussion or ado, Harty indicated that the specified wage rates "doesn't pertain to you [Nestor ]," whereupon Nestor signed the "contract." And in fact Nestor has never paid the wages called for by any Local 705 contract. Nestor rejoined GRAMC in 1%9, since when he has remained a member, continuously displaying its distinctive membership emblem in his station window, and on August 4, 1970, he executed a formal collective-bargaining authorization designation to it. The gross income of his service station in 1970 was around $270,000, approximately 85 percent from gasoline sales. Again without explanation, as in the case of every other gasoline service station dealer, Respondent produced no witness to contradict Nestor in any way. Crediting the described testimony of John M. Nestor, I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible evidence. 57. Instance 57: Niewinaki Service Station (3519 W. Irving Park Rd., Chicago, Ill.) Again upon substantially identical allegations, Joseph 76 He made a claim, relating to his wife, against the union health and welfare coverage, which was paid. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Niewinski ("Niewinski"), owner of the Shell Oil service station at 3519 West Irving Park Road, Chicago, testified that he acquired that station ("Irving Park"), keeping some of its employees, on February 1, 1969, from its former owner, Mrs. Virginia Hoffman, who had a contract with Local 705. On March 15, 1971, Niewinski acquired a second Shell Oil service station at 3349 West Montrose ("Montrose") about 5 or 6 blocks away, at which he made his father, Joseph J. Niewinski, the manager. In April 1969-shortly after Niewinski acquired Irving Park-he was visited by a large, heavyset individual who, identifying himself as a business agent of Local 705,77 presented Niewinski with a preprinted "book form" which he asked Niewinski to sign and to "put" a man into the Union. According to Niewinski's totally uncontradicted testimony, what he describes as the "book form" placed before him by the Local 705 Business Agent was opened to the signature page only and was not explained or described by the Local 705 Business Agent to be a contract, so Niewinski signed it-but he never, then or later, received a signed copy of it. With regard to "putting" anybody into the Union, however, Niewinski said he would first have to talk to his employees about that. Although the Local 705 business agent did not inquire, at this time Niewinski had six (three full- and three part-time) employees. After speaking to employee May, with the permission of Niewinski, the Local 705 business agent stated that he would return subsequently "to talk about putting a man in the union." After the Local 705 business agent left, his employee, May (to whom the Local 705 business agent had spoken, as described above), notified Niewinski that he (May) did not wish to join the Union unless Niewinski paid his dues. Niewinski thereupon asked his employee, Borucki, whether he would join the Union, paying dues but obtaining health and welfare benefits; but Borucki replied that he already had health and welfare coverage and did not wish to join the Union. About 2 weeks later, in early May 1969 the Local 705 business agent returned. Niewinski reported to him that none of his employees wished to join the Union but that he, Niewinski himself, could be "put into the union." This particular business agent-unlike others, as shown above -took the position that Niewinski could not join the Union since he was an employer. Niewinski then inquired whether the Union could supply him with an employee if he needed one at the station and the business agent said no. Niewinski thereupon asked, "What good is the Union to me?" The business agent's response was that Niewinski had signed a contract with the Union, but Niewinski said he had no idea that he had done so. The business agent insisted that Niewinski had "better have somebody to put in the union" when he returned. About a month later, the same business agent returned and again insisted that Niewinski "put [somebody ] into the Union" without further ado. Soon thereafter, in July 1969, Local 705 Business Agent Sam Dibenardo dropped in on Niewinski and demanded that Niewinski put "somebody in the union." Niewinski again pointed out-as he had to the other business agent-that he was unable to do so since no employee was willing to join. Dibenardo left, only to return shortly thereafter (July 1969) and state bluntly to Niewinski, "I am tired of coming around and clowning around with you ... we are going to picket you and cut off your gas deliveries." At this, Niewinski indicated he would attempt to persuade his father (Joseph J. Niewinski) to sign up and become a member of Local 705. Niewinski's father-who drove a tow truck 90 percent, and was an attendant at the station only 10 percent, of the time-ag- reed and signed a card for his son. Accordingly, Niewinski began making payments to Local 705 of union dues and health and welfare contributions on his father. On November 30, 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Dibenardo presented Niewinski with a new, preprinted 3- year (1970-73) contract for signature. This time Niewinski insisted on reading it first, and Dibenardo reluctantly left it with Niewinski at the latter's insistence, explaining that this was not the Union's normal practice. After two more visits by Dibenardo, Niewinski signed the contract in December 1970. At this time, Niewinski had six regular (three full- and three part-time) employees, with his father the only member of the Union. There had been no discussion of any contract provision and Dibenardo made no assertion or claim that the Union represented the employees or a majority of them. On March 15, 1971, Niewinski opened his Montrose station and installed his father as its manager. Although at no time from then on did Niewinski's father work at the Irving Park station, Niewinski continued to make pay- ments to Local 705 on him-and on him alone-at Irving Park just the same as if he were there. That the Union was cognizant of the second (Montrose) station is shown by uncontradicted testimony that a few weeks after that (Montrose) station was opened, a u, for representative called there and demanded of Niewnnek o',, tattier (the manager there) that a "man [be put] in the union at the Montrose station . . . you belong at Irving Park." Following up on this, in early June 1971 Local 705 Business Agent Dibenardo demanded of Niewinski at Irving Park that he put into the Union an (i.e., any) employee at Montrose, but Niewinski refused. Later that month (June 1971) Dibenardo returned to Irving Park and told Niewinski, "We have been pretty easy on you up to now. We have never enforced the contract. All we have asked for is one man. We have never asked to see any payroll records to see what you are paying your men or anything." Nevertheless, Niewinski refused to "put" an Irving Park employee into the Union. At no time has Niewinski observed any provision of his 1967-70 or 1970-73 "contract" with Local 705 (except payments on his father as aforesaid). Niewinski was a member of GRAMC at all of the foregoing times and has prominently displayed its distinc- tive membership emblem in his window since 1970. His gross revenues at Irving Park in 1970 were approximately $328,000. Upon the basis of Joseph Niewinski's uncontradicted, 77 Although the name of this individual has not been established, it is undisputed by Respondent that he was one of its business agents TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 259 credited testimony I find the complaint allegations con- cerning him established by substantial credible evidence. 58. Instances 58 and 59: Partipilo Service Stations ("Vito's Standard Service Inc.," 1004 S DesPlaines Ave. and 1602 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon the familiar allegations, General Counsel witness, Vito Partipilo, testified that he owns and operates two Chicago Standard Oil gasoline and service stations under the name of Vito's Standard Service, Inc., or Vito's Standard: one since 1960 at 1602 South Michigan Avenue (South Michigan) with eight (six full- and two regular part- time) employees, and the other since 1962 at 1004 South DesPlaines Avenue (DesPlaines) with 12 (10 full- [includ- ing the manager, his son Peter Nicholas Partipilo] and 2 regular part-time) employees. In April 1968 at the behest of Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri, Partipilo signed a preprinted 3-year contract (1967-70) covering each of his stations. Spizzen displayed no union membership cards or other evidence that Local 705 represented any of the employees at either of the stations, nor did Spizzeri so claim nor ask how many employees there were. Spizzeri merely "told me to sign the contract and he said to give him four men for each place." (As already indicated, at this time Partipilo had 8 regular employees at South Michigan and 12 regular [including son, manager ] at DesPlaines.) Thereupon, Partipilo called four employees in at South Michigan and they gave their names to Spizzen; and Partipilo gave Spizzen the names of four employees at DesPlaines. In response to General Counsel subpena, Respondent Local 705 produced at the trial a total of only six union cards for Partipilo's employees. It is undisputed that of these not a single signature was authenticated; a card bearing the purported signature of V. Partipilo was not in fact signed by Partipilo,• another card purportedly signed by P. Partipilo was not in fact signed by Partipilo's son; and former employee Oscar Lee Brown was not even alive in April 1968. Partipilo has bee,i a member of GRAMC since 1946, has prominently displayed its distinctive membership emblem in the windows of each of his service stations since at least 1970, executed an express bargaining authorization desig- nation to it on September 16, 1970, and has been a member of its board of directors since 1971. Later in September or October 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri presented a document to Partipilo deauthorizing GRAMC to act as his bargaining representative, and stated to Partipilo that GRAMC could not do anything for him and to drop it and sign the proffered document (a card) to that effect. When Partipilo replied that he wished GRAMC to bargain for him with Local 705, Spizzeri's response was, "There is nothing they could do for you, they have very few people left, you might as well sign it..... [I'11] see you do sign it [I'll] talk to the big man about it.... If [you] don't sign this card, [I'll] see . . . all [of your employees] belong to the Union." At this, Partipilo invited Spizzen to talk to his employees and that it was agreeable with him (Partipilo) if they wished to join the Union. In December 1970 Spizzeri returned to see Partipilo. This time Spizzeri was accompanied by two others. Partipilo told them to " Let out" and "leave me alone." At this time, Partipilo had nine (seven full- and two regular part-time) employees at South Michigan and was making "health and welfare" payments to the Union on three; and with 12 (10 full- and 2 regular part-time) employees at DesPlaines he was paying Local 705 "health and welfare" on only two, one of whom was his son, the station manager there. When Spizzeri returned again in January 1971 with a new "contract" for Partipilo to sign, Partipilo declined to do so. He made no further payments to Local 705 after the expiration of his 1967-70 contract, nor has any employee made any inquiry about it. At no time had he deducted out of any employee's wages any "Union dues" remitted by him to Local 705. At no time had he paid the wages called for by his "contract" with Local 705, nor did Spizzeri ever inquire. The gross volume of Partipilo's business at both stations in 1970 was approximately $ 1 million ($600,000 at DesPlaines and $400,000 at South Michigan), of which about 80 percent was from gasoline sales. Upon the foregoing uncontradicted testimony of Vito Partipilo, whom I credit, I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible eviden- ce. 59. Instance 60: Ratz Service Station (662 E. 111th St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon substantially similar allegations, General Counsel witness Donald Ratz testified that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 662 East 111th Street, Chicago, since December 30, 1968, when he acquired it from previous dealer Langford, retaining two of the latter's employees and hiring five new employees to comprise a total workcrew of seven (five full- and 2 regular part-time) employees. One of previous owner Langford's employees remained for only about a month. In the first week of January 1969, shortly after he took the service station over, Ratz was paid a visit by Local 705 Business Agent George White, who presented to him for signature a preprinted Local 705 contract for 1967-70 and asked him to "put a man in the union." Although Ratz signed the "contract," he did not then "put a man in the union," explaining to White that he had just opened the station but to come back later. At this time, Ratz had five (three full- and two regular part-time) employees, with none in the Union. At no time did White ask how many employees Ratz had nor did White claim to represent any. About a month thereafter (i.e., February 1969) Local 705 Business Agent White returned and reminded Ratz that he (White) "needed a man in the union." So, Ratz himself designated one of his employees to be "the union .. . man," "just pick a man [and] I told the man he'd have to be in the union." In 1969 and 1970, Ratz had six or seven (four or five full- and two regular part-time) employees, with never more than one employee in the Union, except for 1 month when there were two. And Ratz had informed White (in response to White's inquiry)-who called regularly at the Ratz station for "collections"-that he had seven employees. Ratz joined GRAMC on March 5, 1969, signed an express bargaining authorization designation to it on September 13, 1970, and has been displaying its distinctive membership emblem prominently in his service station DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD window since 1970. Late in 1970, Local 705 Business Agent White together with IGD 78 Representative Blair ap- proached Ratz at the latter's service station, and on White's recommendation Ratz signed up also with IGD, which, however, to his knowledge has at no time bargained on his behalf. In late December 1970, when White presented Ratz with a new 3-year preprinted contract (1970-73) for signature, Utz told him to "stick it up [your] a-." Undeterred, White returned in January 1971, informed Ratz that "all but a couple" of the gasoline dealers had signed it and this time threatening Ratz that "if you don't [sign], you could, too, be picketed." Under these circumstances Ratz signed it. At this time Ratz had six or seven (four or five full- and two regular part-time) employees, with only one in the Union. At no time did Local 705 representative White daim to represent a majority of Ratz's employees nor ask for more employees "in" the Union. At no time did Ratz pay the wage rates specified in the 1970-73 "contract," nor did he tell his employees what those rates (or any other provisions of the "contract") were, although he did tell them he had signed the union contract. And he deducted the union "dues" from such wages as he paid his union "member" employees. The gross income of the Ratz service station in 1970 exceeded $550,000, of which 80 percent was from gasoline sales. As usual, the foregoing testimony, in this instance of Donald Ratz, stands uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning Donald Ritz estab- lished by substantial credible evidence. 60. Instance 61: Lester Reddick Service Station (855 W. 95th St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon like allegations, General Counsel witness, Lester Reddick, testified that he owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 855 West 95th Street, Chicago, from January 25, 1971, to March 1, 1972. When he acquired the station, he retained one employee of former owner Winford and hired nine new employees. On the day he took the station over (January 25, 1971), Reddick was visited at his new station by a Local 705 representative who presented him with a preprinted Local 705 contract for his signature and informed him he had to have two "in" the Union "and that one of them could be myself [i.e., Reddick]," or else gasoline deliveries could be stopped b pickets. So, Reddick signed the "contract" and he himselJYbut no employee, "joined" the Union. The Local 705 spokesman showed no evidence that any employee belonged to the Union, nor did he claim to represent any employee. In August 1971 , the Local 705 representative returned to the station to "collect" money for "Union dues" and "health and welfare" and threatened to stop gasoline deliveries to the station if payments were not made. But Reddick did not pay. At no time in the 13 months that he operated the station has Reddick paid any money to Local 705. In response to General Counsel's subpena, Respondent stated on the record that it has no union authorization cards pertaining to the Lester Reddick service station. Reddick has been a member of GRAMC and has prominently displayed its distinctive membership emblem at his service station continuously since April 6, 1971. The gross volume of business of his station for 11 months of 1971 was approximately $600,000, of which about 75 percent was from gasoline sales. Upon the basis of the foregoing uncontradicted, credited testimony, I find the complaint allegations concerning Lester Reddick established by substantial credible eviden- ce. 61. Instance 62: William Reddick Service Station (8100 S. Racine, Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, the owner-operator of the Clark Oil station at 8100 South Racine , Chicago, since April 25, 1%9, William Reddick, testified that in May 1969 he received a caller there, Local 705 Business A ent Jerry Spizzeri, who told him he "had to join Local 705.' Reddick had inherited two union and four nonunion men from the station's previous owner; and he had hired three additional employees, thus rounding out the station's workcrew to nine employees. Spizzeri told Reddick that he wanted him to carry three members in Local 705, and that these could be Reddick himself and his father or other relative (i.e., any three persons, so long as it was three). Reddick said he thought it was unlawful for an owner to belong to the same Union as his employees. Spizzeri indicated this was not so and threatened to picket the station if Reddick did not comply with Spi 's demands. Under these circum- stances, Reddick geed the preprinted Local 705 3-year (1967-70) "contract" proffered by Spizzeri. At this time, only the two union employees (Jesse James [Jones] and John Matthews [Matthew] whom Reddick had inherited from the former owner were in the Union . When one of them (James) left in June 1970 (he had also not worked there from around June to September, 1%9), there remained and since then there has been only one employee (Matthew) in the Union, out of eight (five full- and three regular part-time) employees. Union dues and health and welfare contributions on this one (originally two, as explained above) employee were either picked up by Collector Spizzeri or mailed by Reddick to the Union. Reddick joined GRAMC in May 1%9 and has remained a member since then, continuously displayer its distinc- tive membership emblem in his station window; and on August 5, 1970, he executed to it a formal bargaining authorization designation. In December 1970 Reddick was presented by Spizzeri with a new, 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "new contract" to sign. Reddick refused. Spizzeri warned Reddick that he would have to or he would have "trouble with the union, picketing and closing the station down ... cut the gas supply off, the gasoline truck drivers would not cross the picket line." Reddick remarked that he would wait until a pending GRAMC proceeding was resolved. Spizzeri responded that GRAMC oilose, and that he would picket and cut off Reddick's gasoline supplies, like Is See fns. 29 and 30, supra TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 the picketing and stopping of the gasoline supplies of the station across the street. Reddick said he would wait. Soon thereafter, in January 1971, Spizzeri returned, again demanding that Reddick sign the 3-year preprinted contract. Spizzeri also told Reddick that GRAMC had lost its case, showed him contracts allegedly signed by other dealers, and told Reddick to place three men "in" the Union, threatening to picket otherwise. Under these circumstances, Reddick signed the wholly unnegotiated "contract," but he never "put" any employee into the Union, thus having only one out of nine employees in the Union.79 Shortly before this, in December 1970, Local 705 Business Agent James Jackson, on a visit to Reddick's station to make "collections," told Reddick that if he bought a wristwatch from him for $25 he (Jackson) would take care of any labor problem Reddick had with his employees. (Reddick did not buy the watch.) During the preceding July 1970, Jackson had also requested from or dropped a hint to Reddick about "some vacation money" for himself. At no time has any Local 705 representative asked Reddick how many employees he had nor who they were, nor has any representative been observed talking to any employee. Reddick's station grossed around $603,000 (at least 75-80 percent from gasoline sales) in 1970. Upon the foregoing uncontradicted testimony of William Reddick, whom I credit, I find the complaint allegations pertaining to him established by substantial credible evidence. 62. Instance 63: Reynolds Service Station (6856 W. Ogden Ave., Berwyn, Ill.) Upon the familiar complaint allegations, the owner- operator of the Clark Oil service station at 6856 West Ogden Avenue, Berwyn (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, since around 1960, Marvin Reynolds, testified-also without contradiction-that he has been signing 3-year contracts with Local 705 since that time, although the Local 705 Business Agent (Adams, from 1960-68) at no time showed him any union authorization card signed by any employee, nor claimed to represent any employee, nor inquired about or discussed wages, nor observably talked to any employee. During the same period (1960-68), although Reynolds had an average of seven employees, at no time were there more than two employees (plus himself) in the Union. And at no time did Reynolds observe any of the "contract" provi- sions. Reynolds had signed the Local 705 preprinted 1967-70 contract at the request of its Business Representative Ray ("Red") Kolb, at that time with only two employees (one Reynolds' brother) in the Union out of seven (three full- 79 The Local 705 "health and welfare" contributions report for the station for the period ending January 1, 1971, in Spi zerr's handwriting, shows only one employee (Matthews) as the only union member so The words "owner-partner" were added by some unknown person to the document Reynolds signed. 91 Reynolds accounted for a seeming discrepancy in his pretrial statement that he had only five employees then, by explaining that the pretrial statement was given while in the course of waiting on customers at his station. After observing Reynolds' testimonial demeanor I am satisfied that his explanation is truthful, particularly since he enumerated and 261 and four regular part-time) employees. When Kolb presented a new preprinted 3-year (1970-73) Local 705 contract to Reynolds for signature in October 1970, Reynolds said he could not afford to pay the wages it called for-indeed, he had not even been paying all employees the wages called for by the former (1967-70) "contract." Kolb returned in November 1970, this time threatening Reynolds that unless he signed the contract "you are going to get the gas shut off and [I'll] picket the station." Reynolds said he would sign up only if Kolb got the neighboring stations to sign up. Kolb returned later in the same month, however, threatening Reynolds that "[You're] going to have to sign the contract." Under these circumstances, Reynolds signed80-"If I went broke,I'd just close the place up . . . ." At this time, Reynolds had seven (three full- and four regular part-time) employees, with only two (one Reynolds' brother) employees (plus Reynolds himself) in the Union.81 At no time did Kolb display any union card or offer evidence that he represent- ed, nor did he claim to represent, Reynolds' employees; nor did Reynolds observe any provision of the "contract." When Local 705 Business Agent Kolb came to make "collections" in March 1971 , Reynolds informed him that he would make no further payments of "Union dues" or "health and welfare" contributions to the Union since he could no longer afford to do so . Kolb promised to be back. When Kolb returned in April 1971, Reynolds again refused to make payments, this time informing Kolb that he (Reynolds) was (also) acting on advice of GRAMC (which he had joined in 1960, and to which he formally executed an express bargaining authorization designation on Sep- tember 10, 1970).82 The gross volume of Reynolds' business at the station in 1970 was $473,000. Upon the basis of the credited uncontradicted testimony described, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Marvin Reynolds have been established by substantial credible evidence. 63. Instance 64: Friendly Three Service Co. (Robinson) Service Station (800 W . 59th St., Chicago, Ill.) General Counsel witness Percy Robinson, Jr., testified at the trial upon like allegations. He has been a principal officer of Friendly Three Service Co., an Illinois corpora- tion83 since 1961, from when it has owned and operated two Shell Oil gasoline service stations in Chicago, one at 59th and Throop (since 1959) (Throop) and the other approximately 1 mile away at 59th and Halsted (since July 1966) (Halsted). Halsted is operated by Robinson, Throop by Earsel Hall (another principal of the foregoin corporation; the third corporate principal, Hiram Hill, identified by name-without contradiction or countervailing evidence of any land-the seven employees in question. 82 At the trial, I sustained Reynolds' plea of constitutional freedom from self-incrimination when Respondent sought to cross -examine him concern. mg whether or not he had deducted his previous payments to Local 705 from his employees' wages. 83 Complaint (paragraph XIV) accordingly amended to that corporate name at the trial, in place of Percy Robinson, Jr., and listing moved from Appendix B to Appendix A of complaint. 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stepped out in 1962). Both stations are operated as a single intergrated enterprise and both obtain their gasoline supplies from the same Shell depot in Argo, Illinois. The gross volume of business of the stations in 1970 was approximately $529,000 (of this around $200,000 at Halsted), with about 75 percent thereof from gasoline sales. In 1963, Local 705 Business Agent George Gilmore visited the Throop station (where Robinson and the corporation were then solely located) and announced that he wanted to sign up some men for the Union "if you don't want any trouble and . . . picketing ...." Gilmore did not ask how many employees there were, displayed no evidence that he represented any employee, and did not even claim to represent any employee. Under the circum- stances, however, Robinson, acceding to Gilmore's de- mand, "put into" the Union himself and the station manager and supervisor (Frank Gattis) but no rank-and- file employee. At this time, the station had four (three full- and one part-time) employees. Robinson then commenced making payments regularly, on himself and the station manager only, to Local 705. In 1966, Robinson moved to the Halsted station when that location was acquired by his corporation, which continued making the aforedescribed payments to Local 705. In March 1968, Local 705 Business Agent Gilmore, presenting a preprinted 3-year (1967-70) "contract" to Robinson for signature, told him it "is time for [you] to sign the contract" but that "this time" there was to be "some additional-we have what you call the health and welfare." Robinson signed it and commenced making additional "health and welfare" payments, still limited to himself and Station Manager-Supervisor Gattis only, although at this time he had six (four full- and two regular part-time) employees. From 1968 to 1970, these pay- ments-still limited to principal Robinson and Manager Gattis-were continued, with regular collections by Gil- more, who was never seen to talk to any of the employees. When Local 705 Business Agent Gilmore presented a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted contract for Robinson's signature on December 3, 1970, Robinson told him business had "dropped completely" and things were "kind of rough," but he nevertheless signed it. The contract provisions were at no time in any way discussed, nor did Gilmore even so much as claim that he represented any employee. At this time, with six (four full- and two regular part-time) employees excluding himself, Robinson himself was the only "member" of the Union, since Robinson told Gilmore that business was bad and Gilmore agreed to "go along" and drop Gattis (the station manager) so that Robinson (the station owner principal) himself would be the only one at the station carried as a union "member. "84 The distinctive membership emblem of GRAMC had been prominently displayed on the front door of the station or stations since the Robinson enterprise joined and authorized it to bargain collectively for it on July 10, 1968. Upon the basis of the credited uncontradicted testimony of Percy Robinson, Jr., I find that the complaint allega- tions (as amended) concerning Friendly Three Service Co. 84 This, again, as in other instances, is substantiated by Union business agent's and union "health and welfare" reports in the Local 705 business (as amended from Percy Robinson, Jr.) have been established by substantial credible evidence. 64. Instance 65: Root Service Station (631 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, I11.) On the familiar allegations, General Counsel witness, Herbert Root, testified-again without contradiction -concerning the Standard Oil Service Station at 631 North LaSalle Street, Chicago (LaSalle), owned and operated by him with his brother Sherman Root as officers and equal shareholders in S & H Root, Inc., doing business as Root Brothers Standard Service Center since early 1970, and prior thereto as a partnership under the firm name and style of Ontario & LaSalle Service Station. For about 20 years until November 1969 the Root brothers also ran a Standard Oil gasoline service station at 601 North Dearborn Street, Chicago (Dearborn), about 2 or 3 blocks from their LaSalle station. Around 1962-64, Local 705 Business Agent James Harty (Hardy) visited the Roots at Dearborn and, in response to his inquiry, was informed by the Roots there that they had six or four (or less) employees, whereupon he told them, "[You] would need two men from the station to belong to the union." The employers (i.e., the Roots) thereupon "decided who we wanted in the union" and enlisted one employee to sign a membership dues-checkoff card for Local 705; the other card was signed by employer Sherman Root himself. Thereafter, Local 705 Business Agent Harty called regularly, about every 3 months, at times personally collecting "dues" and "health and welfare" contributions from Root, paid by the employers' checks although at no time withheld from any employee's pay. At no time did the Roots pay union scale as required by their "contract" with Local 705; they only made payments, as aforedescribed, to Local 705. As late as 1968-69 (the final year of the Dearborn operation), excluding themselves the Roots had six (four full- and two regular part-time) employees at Dearborn, of whom only one (McQuiston) was a member of Local 705. With the Roots' acquisition of LaSalle, Dearborn was closed in August 1969, when two of the Dearborn employees (McQuiston and Sims) were trans- ferred to LaSalle and most of the employees of the former owner of LaSalle were retained there by the Roots but left soon afterwards. Soon after the Roots took over LaSalle-probably in August or the first half of September 1969-Local 705 Business Agent Harty had a talk with the Roots, mention- ing his Union's contract with the previous owner there and that the station had had four out of eight employees in the Union, and stating to the Roots that "Now that you have taken it over, we will require four men from you in the union at the station." At this time there were, aside from the Roots, at least 8 to 10 or more employees, probably all full-time, employed by the Roots at LaSalle. Accordingly, the preprinted 1967-70 "contract" of Local 705 which Harty presented for signature was signed (on September 18, 1969) and Harty gave Herbert Root four Local 705 membership-Union dues checkoff cards, whereupon Root agent's-in this case, Gilmore's-own handwriting, filled out in the Employer's presence. This is totally uncontradicted upon the record. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 263 "chose who we wanted to sign the cards," designating three employees (McQuiston, Fields, and Media85); and the fourth card was signed by Employer Sherman Root (a one- half partner). From 1969 to the beginning of 1971, LaSalle had a maximum of four (apparently including owner Sherman Root) "in" the Union, out of an employee complement of 10 to 15 (of whom all except perhaps one or two were full- time). Harty continued to call every 3 months or so to make collections of "dues" and "health and welfare" contributions, which the Employer paid (by checks) without deduction from any employee's pay. At no time did the Employer pay the union scale wages required by the "contract" with Local 705, nor did any Local 705 represent- ative inquire on that subject, nor was that agreement observed in other respects, nor was Local 705 "servicing" Business Agent Harty ever seen talking to any employee. At no time did Harty even claim to represent any employee; at no time did any employee become a member of Local 705 in any way other than by the Employer enlisting or "putting" him "into" that Union. The Employer has been a member of GRAMC for over 10 years, during which period of time GRAMC has been its designated collective-bargaining representative; from around 1964-70, Herbert Root was an officer thereof and member of its board of directors; and in August 1970, a formal express bargaining authorization designation was executed to it. At all times since shortly after opening LaSalle (August 1969), the distinctive membership emblem of GRAMC has been conspicuously displayed in its front window. In October or November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Harty presented to the Roots a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 contract for signature. Herbert Root refused to sign, indicating that GRAMC was its bargaining representative and that there was a pending NLRB proceeding. Harty stated that the NLRB proceeding "wouldn't amount to anything" and urged that he save himself "a lot of problems, aggravation by signing the contract now." When Root continued to decline, Harty promised to be back. At this time, that station (i.e., LaSalle) had between 10 and 14 employees (probably all full-time), with only three employees (McQuiston, Fields, and Media) plus owner, Sherman Root, "in" the Union (the same as at all times in 1970 and 1971). True to his promise, Local 705 Business Agent Harty returned later in November or December 1970 and asked Herbert Root (in the presence of his brother, Sherman) whether he had changed his mind about signing the contract, stating that GRAMC had "lost" its "case." Harty warned Root that if he signed the contract then, it would go "easier" for Root, stating that "every other dealer [is] doing so, so why don't [you]," and threatened that if Root did not sign it Harty could "put" all the men in the union instead of the four that [you] now have; and that Root "could be made an example of" as a GRAMC official, and that he would or could easily picket "to stop gasoline deliveries." At this time, the station still had 10 to 12 employees, but Harty neither inquired how many there were nor asked for more than the existing three plus Root to join the Union. When Harty returned a week or two later, this time accompanied by another Local 705 emissary, and again demanded that Root sign the new preprinted 3-year contract, under the described circum- stances Root did so and also resigned his office in GRAMC. At this time, the station had ten to fourteen employees, probably all full-time, with only three (plus owner Sherman Root) "in" the Union. Root has never seen Local 705 "servicing" Business Agent Harty for any purpose other than to demand that he sign preprinted "contracts" and to make "collections." The 1970 gross revenues of LaSalle were around $1 million. That station sells over 150,000 gallons of gasoline per month at an average price (ca. 1970) of 42 cents per gallon. Upon the described uncontradicted, credited testimony of Herbert Root, I find the complaint allegations concern- ing him and Sherman Root and the service station in question established by substantial credible evidence. 65. Instance 66: Rosman Service Station (4425 W. 63d St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness Paul Rosman testified-also without contradiction-that since November 1956 he and his brother, Norman, have as equal partners owned and operated the Arco Oil service station at 4425 West 63d Street, Chicago, with Local 705 "contracts" every 3 years. The Rosman brothers entered into their first "contract" with Local 705 in 1955 (they then operated another gasoline station, across the street), after they received a visit from Local 705 Business Agent Andy Lezoretti, who announced to them, "[You have] to join the union." The Rosman brothers demurred, pointing out that they were the only two persons at the station, that they were the owners, and that they belonged to GRAMC. This fell on deaf ears, Lezoretti threatening that if they did not sign up they would receive no gasoline deliveries since all of the gasoline truckdrivers belonged to Local 705. When Paul Rosman asked what benefit he would get from the Union, Lezoretti replied, "When you drop dead, your wife will get $400 . . . . I will be back in a couple days." When he returned a few days later, Paul Rosman signed the "contract" and joined the Union. In 1960, when the Rosmans inquired of Lezoretti whether Norman Rosman could "put himself in" instead of the constant turnover of carwashers they then had, Lezoretti said, "Fine," so Norman Rosman joined, making the two owners the only ones in the Union. At no time did Lezoretti claim to represent any employee or discuss any provision of any of the "contracts." In March 1968, Local 705 Business Agent James Hall presented a new preprinted 3-year Local 705 contract, which Paul Rosman signed. At this time, also, none of the station's six (all regular part-time) employees belonged to the Union, but the Rosmans were making payments to Local 705 only on themselves (the station owners). At no es Although, according to Root and in fact, mechanics are not included in the Local 705 collective agreement , two of these three employees-Mc- Quiston and Fields-were mechanics. 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time did Hall inquire how many employees there were, nor was he seen to speak to any employee, nor did he claim to represent any employee, nor did he discuss any contract provision; nor did the Rosmans observe any provision of their "contract" with Local 705. However, the Rosmans continued making payments to Local 705 on themselves. In January 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Hall visited the station with a new preprinted 3-year (1970-73) "contract" for signature. The Rosman brothers declined to do so upon the stated ground that GRAMC-of which they had been members continuously since 1948 (with its distinctive membership emblem conspicuously displayed at their station, and with Norman Rosman on its board of directors from around 1960 to 1967) and to which they had on September 14, 1970, executed a formal bargaining representation designation-had told them to hold off. Hall's response was that GRAMC had "just about had it" and that "If you were smart you'd join Bobby Jacobs and his IGD Association."m Under the indicated circum- stances, Norman Rosman signed the proffered "contract." At this time, also, none of the Rosman brothers' five (one full- and four regular part-time) employees were in the Union, but the Rosmans (owners) were making payments to Local 705 on themselves only. On this occasion also, as on all others, Local 705 emissary, Hall, did not inquire how many employees there were, nor what pay they were receiving, nor claim to represent any employee, nor discuss any provision of the "contract." Nor did the Rosman brothers ever observe any provision of that "contract." The only thing the Rosman brothers did was to make regular "dues" payments to Local 705 on themselves (the station owners) only, and the only thing Local 705 did was to collect those payments. (The Rosmans paid only "dues" to Local 705. When Hall had asked them in 1968 to make "health and welfare" payments also, they declined because they already had Blue Cross. Hall thereupon said, "I'll let you go now," and never brought the matter up after that.) At no time since 1960 has any employee of the Rosman brothers been in Local 705, their ostensible "representa- tive" and bargaining agent under the described "contracts" between Local 705 and the Rosmans. The 1970 gross revenue of the Rosmans' service station exceeded $300,000, of which 75 percent was from gasoline sales. The foregoing testimony of Paul Rosman was, again, totally uncontradicted; indeed, not even cross-examined. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning Paul and Norman Rosman established by substantial credible evidence. 66. Instance 67: Shimko Service Station (6757 W. 26th St., Berwyn, Ill.) Upon like complaint allegations, Thomas Shimko, owner and operator of an Arco Oil service station at 6757 West 26th Street, Berwyn (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, testified that he has owned and operated that station since September 2, 1958, with 3-year "contracts" with Local 705 since shortly thereafter. From 1958 to 1968, although Shimko had (exclusive of w Soo Ins. 29 and 30, supra himself) four (one full- and three part-time) employees at the station, he made payments to Local 705 of union dues and health and welfare contributions on only one employee (Preseda), who spent 75 percent of his time as a mechanic and was also a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and also on himself (Shimko, the owner). When, on March 26, 1968, Local 705 Business Agent Edward Miller presented a new 3-year (1967-70) preprinted Local 705 "contract" to Shimko for signature, Shimko signed it. He then had two employees (Supervisor Preseda and one other employee). Likewise, when in October 1970, Miller presented another 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "contract," Shimko signed that, too. At that time, Shimko had four (Supervisor Preseda and three regular part-time) employees, but was paying union dues and health and welfare contributions to Local 705 on himself (Shimko) and Supervisor Preseda only. At no time did Miller or any other Local 705 Business Agent inquire as to the number of employees or their wages, nor was he seen talking to any employee, nor did he claim to represent any employee. He merely came around to make collections from Shimko, who made payments on himself and his supervisor only but observed no provision of the "contract" with Local 705. At no time did Shiniko tell any employee (other than Supervisor Preseda) that he had signed a contract with Local705. Shimko (who has been a member of GRAMC since April 1969, with its distinctive membership emblem prominently displayed on his station's front window since then) did a gross business in 1970 at his station of over $200,000 (half from gasoline sales). Upon the credited uncontradicted testimony of Thomas Shimko, I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible evidence. 67. Instance 68: Sims Service Station (9155 S. Stony Island Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar complaint allegations, the uncontradicted, credited testimony of General Counsel witness, John R. Sims, establishes that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 9155 South Stony Island Avenue, Chicago, since 1969, after taking it over from former owner Hamilton (who had had a union contract) and retaining two of the former employees (one a union member). On October 15, 1969, Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri made a call on Sims at his new station, handed him a preprinted Local 705 3-year contract to sign, and told him he "had to have three men in the union." Pleading that he had just taken over the station, Sims said, "I only [have] one man to put in the union." Spizzeri told Sims to put him in and also himself (i.e., Sims, the station owner). At this time, Sims had nine (five full- and four regular part- time) employees at the station. Sims thereupon sinned the "contract"-which was in no way negotiated or discussed, or even read by Simsr-and, in the presence of Spizzeri, told his employee, Morrellis, to join the Union; when Morrellis said he did not want to join, Sims told him he would have to join or he wouldn't have a job. Under these circum- stances Morrellis became a "member" of Local 705. At no TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 time had Spizzeri shown Sims any evidence that he represented any of Sims' employees nor did Spizzeri even make such a claim. From April to June 1970-as corroborated by written reporting forms to Local 705-Sims paid to Local 705 union dues on himself (the owner) only. In July 1970, Local 705 Business Agent (Reverend) James Jackson appeared at Sims' service station and told Sims he (Jackson) wanted more employees in the Union. Sims thereupon summoned his employee McKay and told him-in Jackson's presen- ce-that he would "have to join the union," even though McKay said he did not want to. When, 2 days later, Local 705 spokesman, Spizzeri, called with a union card for McKay to sign, McKay signed it in Sims' presence. Sims became a member of GRAMC and designated it as his collective-bargaining agent on August 14, 1970, since when he has continuously displayed its distinctive mem- bership emblem prominently in his station window. In January 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri presented to Sims anew 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "contract" for Sims' signature. Sims refused to sign. Spizzeri asked why. Sims replied that it was on advice of GRAMC (his bargaining representative). Displaying 10 or 15 alleged "contracts" which he said other gasoline dealers had signed, Spizzeri pressed Sims who, however, was adamant. Spizzeri then threatened "to put pickets up and strike the station." Sims continued to refuse to sign. Later that month (January) or early in February (1971), Spizzeri returned and again demanded that Sims sign the "con- tract" under threat of "pickets and strike." Sims refused. A few days later, Local 705 spokesman, (Reverend) James Jackson, accompanied by still another union representa- tive, visited Sims on the same mission. Continuing to refuse to sign the "contract," Sims told them he could not operate the station under the "contract." At this time, none of Sims' seven (four full- and three regular part-time) employees was in the Union. Sims' gross revenue at the station in 1970 was approxi- mately $393,000, about 80 percent from gasoline sales. Upon the basis of Sims' foregoing credited testimo- ny-which, again, is totally uncontradicted-I find the complaint allegations concerning John R. Sims established by substantial credible evidence. 68. Instance 69: John H. Smith Service Station (2008 W. Madison St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon similar complaint allegations, the Clark Oil service station owner-operator at 2008 West Madison Street, Chicago, John H. Smith, testified that after working there for awhile, on March 1, 1967, he took the station over from the former owner, Bolden, retaining all four of Bolden's employees, none of whom (nor Smith) was a union member . Within a few weeks, however, only one of the former employees remained, and Smith had (except for that one remaining former employee) a workcrew of four new employees. Around April 1967-a month after he started operating his service station-Smith was paid a call by Local 705 Business Agent Danny Ligurotus, who told him someone "would have to join the union" and it could be "you" (i.e., owner Smith). So, Smith signed the preprinted 3-year 265 (1964-67) "contract" of Local 705 and put himself (i.e., Smith, the owner) into the Union, paying Ligurotus in cash a $25 "initiation fee," plus $12 "Union dues" for 2 months. Although the Local 705 emissary indicated he wanted a second person also in the Union, when Smith pointed out that he was new there the union spokesman was content to leave it at that, with Smith alone "joining" the Union. At no time did the union representative display any evidence that he represented, nor did he even claim to represent, any employee. Smith had informed him that he had five full- time employees, exclusive of himself. In October 1967 the same Local 705 spokesman returned and told Smith that he would "have to put another man in the union so I [Smith] agreed. I put another man in the Union . . . . Henry Spencer." Although Smith then had five employees (all full time), employee Spencer thereby became and until August 1968 remained the only employee in the Union. When a Local 705 emissary presented a preprinted 3-year (1967-70) Local 705 contract to Smith' for signature around March 1968, Smith signed it. He then had seven full-time employees (excluding himself), with only one (Spencer) plus Smith himself "in" the Union. On August 6, 1968, a second employee (Tyrone Lewis) was placed into the Union; this was accomplished by Smith': signing Lewis' name on a Local 705 union card, in the presence of the Local 705 representative. When employee and Local 705 "member" Spencer left Smith's employ he was replaced on October 1, 1968, by Henry Leachman who was similarly put into the Union by Smith's signing Leachman's name on a Local 705 union card in the presence of the Local 705 representative. From then until the end of 1970, of seven (all full-time) employees there were only two (Lewis and Leachman, put in as aforedef scribed by Smith himself, signing their names) who were "members" of Local 705, plus Smith himself. In 1969, (Reverend) James Jackson took over as the Local 705 business agent "serving" the Smith service station. Although in September or October Jackson told Smith that Smith "had to get another man into the Union" because Jackson's "boss [is] cracking down on [me, Jackson]," apparently Smith's objections sufficed to allay Jackson-who had even suggested that Smith "put a man in for a month and kick him out the next month." Smith had been a member of GRAMC since March 17, 1967, with its distinctive membership emblem prominently displayed in his station window. He also executed a formal collective-bargaining authorization designation to GRAMC on September 11, 1970, and has been a member of its board of directors since 1971. Around January 1971, Local 705 Business Agent (Reverend) James Jackson and a companion called at the station and, in the presence of Lewis and Leachman-the station's only two employees who were Local 705 "members"-announced to Smith that it was "time to sign the new contract," a 3-year preprinted "contract" for 1970-73. Smith refused. Stating that "Gasoline Retailers [i.e., GRAMC] done lost the case," Jackson at once got picket signs out of his car and he and his companion began picketing. A crowd gathered. Lewis and Leachman-the only employee union "members" -did not join, in the picket , by Jackson, and his 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD companion, who left shortly thereafter when they observed Smith at the telephone. Smith's gross revenue at his service station in 1970 was in excess of $500,000, approximately 60 percent from gasoline sales. Upon the basis of the uncontradicted and uncross- examined testimony of John H. Smith, whom I credit, I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible evidence. 69. Instance 70: Paul Smith & Aubrey Davis Service Station (5200 S. Lake Park Ave., Chicago, Ill.) As amended and further amended at the trial, the complaint alleges (par. XII(fff), XV, and Appendix A), concerning Paul Smith and Aubrey Davis and the gasoline service station they operate, as GRAMC members, under the trade name of D & S Shell Service at 5200 South Lake Park Avenue, Chicago, that on certain dates in 1971 Respondent did not represent a majority of their employ- ees, but nevertheless threatened to stop their gasoline and other deliveries and close the station down unless they signed an -unlawful collective bargaining agreement (par. XII(ffJ) ); and that, knowing Davis and Smith were members of and had designated GRAMC as their collective-bargaining representative, Local 705 as the collective-bargaining representative of the D & S station employees, in or around November 1970, threatened to picket and stop gasoline and other deliveries to the station, unless the station owner signed a collective agreement with Local 705, without affording or intending to afford the station owners an opportunity to bargain (either individu- ally or through GRAMC), and that Respondent attempted through strike and picket to enforce the agreement exacted under those circumstances (par. X V ). General Counsel witness, Aubrey Davis, one of the station owners, testified without contradiction in proof of these allegations . Davis testified that he and Smith have owned and operated the station since April 1970, under the trade name of D & S Shell Service, starting out with 12 employees (2 full-time mechanics, and 5 full- and 5 part- time gasoline attendants; exclusive of the 2 owners, Davis and Smith), of whom 8 had worked for the station's previous owner, Bell, who did not tell the new owners he had a union contract nor which if any employees were union members. In the same month they took over the station, Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzen paid a visit and presented a Local 705 contract to Davis for signature. Davis refused to sign it. Spizzeri told him he would "have to sign it because [former owner] Bell have most of the guys in the station in the union." When Davis continued to refuse to sign it, after some discussion, he and Spizzeri arrived at the "compro- mise" understanding that there need be only five men in the Union, so Davis signed the contract. At this time, the station had 12 (7 full-time, including 2 mechanics, and 5 part-time) employees. Davis and Smith then commenced paying Local 705 dues and health and welfare contri- butions on five-in any event less than a majority, and including two mechanics (Sato and Pette) not in the bargaining unit-employees (Sato, Pette, Smith, Jones, and Ball). At no time have Davis and Smith made any payments to Local 705 on any other employees.87 In November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri presented Davis with a new, preprinted 3-year (1970-73) Local 705 contract for signature. Davis refused to sign. Spizzeri threatened that if he did not sign, the station's gasoline supply would be "cut off" and that the station would be picketed. However , Davis continued to refuse to sign. Returning to the station late that month (November 1970) from a road call, Davis heard loud yelling in the office, Davis' partner Smith telling Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri he would "not sign a g-d damn thing." When Spizzeri presented the contract (1970-73) to Davis, Davis signed it. Neither Spizzeri nor any other Local 705 representative had even claimed to represent a majority of the station's employees nor had there been any negotiation nor indication that any negotiation was possible. At this time, there were (exclusive of Davis and Smith), 12 employees at the station, 7 to 10 full-time (including 2 full- time mechanics) and 2 to 5 regular part-time, with payments being made to Local 705 on the same 5 (including 2 nonunit mechanics88) employees aforedes- cribed, who were the only employees "in" the Union-or, not a majority. The Davis and Smith service station became a member of GRAMC in January 1971, with its distinctive member- ship emblem prominently displayed on the station door. The station has made no further payments to Local 705 since July 1971. When Spizzeri dunned Davis for payment several times around November 1971, Davis informed him that on advice of GRAMC counsel no further payments would be made. Saying that GRAMC had no "leg to stand on" and that its "case in court in Washington has been 'thrown ] out . . . [by] the judge," Spizzeri threatened that unless Davis paid up the station would be picketed and its gasoline deliveries stopped. On December 14, 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri visited the station in person to "talk this thing over." The discussion was essentially the same as in November, but this time Spizzeri indicated that if Davis paid up for only 2 months "arrears," the balance of the "delinquency" would be excused. Davis refused. Spizzeri declared that in that case there would be a strike, picketing, and "there will be no gas." On December 16, 1971, 2 days later, when Davis arrived at the station late in the morning, there was a picket line of the five (a minority; and including the two nonunit mechanics) Local 705 employ- ees, carrying signs stating, "This station on strike. Local 705." All of the other employees (i.e., the nonunion majority) worked that day and for the next 4 days during which the picketing continued. The gross revenue of the Davis and Smith service station from April through December 1970, was around $450,000; for 1971, approximately $673,000; in each case, about 80 percent for gasoline sales. 87 At the trial, I sustained Davis' constitutional plea, during cross- 88 Among other things, the mechanics received about $ 125 more pay per examination, against self-incrinunanon as to whether his payments to Local week than the other full-time employees (who were all gasoline attendants). 705 were deducted from the wages of the employee "members " TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 Upon the foregoing uncontradicted, credited testimony of Aubrey Davis, I find that the allegations of the complaint as amended and further amended concerning him and Paul Smith and their service station in question, have, essentially as there alleged, been established by substantial credible evidence except that it has not been established (as alleged in par. XV of the complaint as amended) that Respondent Local 705 at any time here material has been the exclusive representative of all of the employees comprising an appropriate bargaining unit of employees at said service station. 70. Instance 71: Spradley Service Station (8732 S. Stony Island Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon the usual complaint allegations, General Counsel witness, James Spradley, testified that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 8732 South Stony Island Avenue, Chicago, since August 1969. In early September 1969, right after he started in business, Spradley received a visit from Local 705 emissary Jerry Spizzeri, who told him, "I learned you are a new dealer . . . . This is the contract you will have to sign to operate . . . . You will have to put your men in the union." After Spradley informed Spizzeri that he was a member of the Union, Spradley told him to also "put" an employee "in" the Union. At this time-known to Spizzeri-Spradley had four (two full- and two part-time) employees. Under the circumstances, Spradley signed the agreement and thereafter "put" his son, James, into the Union, paying his initiation fee, dues, and health and welfare contributions, without deduction from his pay. Around December 1969, Local 705 Representative (Reverend or "Preacher") Jackson called at the station and warned Spradley that if he didn't keep up his dues and health and welfare payments the Union would "have to close [you] down." Spradley promised to pay up. About 6 weeks later Jackson returned, notified Spradley that he was "still delinquent," and threatened that if he did not pay up Jackson would compel him to "put" all of his employees into the Union. Reminding him that "fellow, I be nice to you," Jackson pressed Spradley to buy two watches from him at $50 apiece (without showing him the watches). Spradley promised to buy them when he got the money. In August 1970, Spizzen came around again to dun Spradley for payments, again threatening to "put all your men in" and "picket you and shut you down." Spradley pointed out that he himself was the only "Union man" at the station since his son had left. At Spizzeri's direction and urging, Spradley "put" another employee, Johnson, "in" the Union and promised to pay his initiation fee, dues, and health and welfare contributions. In October 1970 Spizzen presented Spradley with a new preprinted 3-year (1970-73) Local 705 contract to sign, the same "as all the rest of the dealers have." Spradley, who had associated himself with GRAMC as a member since about the time he went into business at the station (August 1969), told Spizzeri that he was unable to pay the wage scale called for by the contract and asked Spizzeri who had as See instance 68, supra 90 Subpenaed Local 705 records show only two employees (Guider and 267 rsgotiated it. Spizzeri replied, "This is the way it always [has] been done." Spradley did not sign at that time. In November or December, Spizzeri again brought up the contract. When Spradley told him that he (Spradley) nad been informed that other dealers had not signed it and that GRAMC, to which he belonged, had advised him that he need not sign it, Spizzeri indicated Spradley would "have to sign it." When Spizzeri returned in January (1971), he bluntly told Spradley, "Now you going to have to sign the contract or else we going to picket you, shut you down." When Spradley pointed out that his nearby competitor, Sims,89 had not signed, Spizzeri replied, "We are going to shut him down, we will picket him and he will be shut down in two weeks." Under these circumstances, Spradley signed the 1970-73 "contract." At that time, Spradley had seven (three full- and four regular part-time) employees, with only one (plus Spradley himself) in the Union. Spradley paid all union dues and health and welfare contributions every 3 months to a Local 705 business agent who called to make collections. Spradley's gross revenues at his service station in 1970 were approximately $458,000, mostly from gasoline sales. Following the invariable pattern, Respondent produced no witnesses to contradict or in any way to dispute the gasoline service station dealer's testimony. Upon the described testimony of James Spradley, I find the com- plaint allegations concerning him established by substan- tial credible evidence. 71. Instance 72: Stokes Service Station (814 E. 87th St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon substantially the same complaint allegations, General Counsel witness Roy Stokes, unemployed at the time of this trial, testified that he owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at 814 East 87th Street, Chicago, from December 1, 1970, to November 31, 1971. Stokes joined GRAMC and authorized it to bargain collectively for him in January 1971, since when its distinctive membership emblem has continuously been prominently displayed at his station. Stokes received a visit at his service station in February 1971 from Teamsters Local 705 Business Agent George Gilmore, with a preprinted contract to sign. Stokes declined. Gilmore said others had signed and that "it would be a wise thing to do .... If you don't sign you may have a strike." Returning a few weeks later, Gilmore told Stokes he need "only have to put in three" ( including Stokes himself, or therefore only 2 employees) out of the 12 employees Stokes informed Gilmore he had. Gilmore also told Stokes that the former owner of the station (all of whose employees Stokes had taken over but replaced as necessary)90 had had a contract with Local 705 and that Stokes need not sign a new one but merely "honor" that of the former dealer. When Stokes asked how much it would cost him to "put" all of his employees "in" the Union, Gilmore said around $800 per year but not to "worry" about "putting" all of them "in," two would be enough. So, Stokes signed the contract. Gilmore then left one union Little) of the former owner as members of Local 705. 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD membership card with Stokes and told him to give it to his employee, Guider. At this time, excluding himself, Stokes had 12 (7 full- and 5 regular part-time) employees, with now in the Union. Stokes' gross receipts at his service station from December 1970 through November 31, 1971, were approxi- mately $486,000, about 75 percent from gasoline sales. Upon the foregoing wholly uncontradicted, credited testimony of Roy Stokes, I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible eviden- ce. 72. Instance 73: Ukockis Service Station (6801 W. 87th St., Oak Lawn, Ill.) Upon substantially the same complaint allegations, General Counsel witness Peter Ukockis testified that he has owned and operated the Texaco Oil service station at 6801 West 87th Street, Oak Lawn, Illinois, from June 1965 (for the first 7 months with a partner) to June 1971. When Ukockis took the station over, he reopened it after it had been closed for about a year. In July 1965, right after he opened the station, Ukockis was visited by two Local 705 emissaries who said they would be back when "[you are] on [your] feet." In November, one of the two (Rebout) returned (with another companion) for Ukockis "to sign a contract with the union." Ukockis declined. The union emissary (Rebout) told him, "At least one man in the station [has] to be in the union and it could be [you] . . . . or [I] would picket the station." Ukockis declined to sign or join. When the same Local 705 emissary again returned on December 2, 1965, Ukockis' then partner finally signed the preprinted Contract. Neither the emissary nor any other Local 705 representative had ever asked how many employees there were at the station, nor claimed to represent any employee, nor was any employee a member of the Union. A few days later, on December 7, 1965, the same Local 705 agent (Rebout) returned and had Ukockis himself sign a Local 705 membership card. (Ukockis' partner stepped out about 2 months thereafter, leaving Ukockis the sole owner of the station.) From 1965 to 1967, another Local 705 business agent (Benny Kay) came around each 3 months to make "collections"-for owner Ukockis only, he being the only one at the station "in" the Union. In March 1968, Local 705 Business Agent Hall presented a new preprinted 3-year (1967-70) Local 705 contract to Ukockis, which he signed. At no time did Hall ask how many employees there were nor claim to represent any employee. At this time, excluding himself, Ukockis had two (one full- and one regular part-time) employees. Thereafter, Hall called each 3 months to collect "Union dues" from Station Owner Ukockis. At no time has any station employee been a member of Local 705; only Ukockis himself has been a "member" under the circumstances described At no time has Ukockis observed any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of any "contract" with Local 705. On December 2 or 3, 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Hall presented a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 contract to Ukockis to sign. Ukockis refused to sign, saying he was a member of GRAMC (which he had joined in 1967 and to which on September 2, 1970, he had executed an express bargaining designation authorization; and whose distinctive membership emblem he had for years been displaying conspicuously on his station's front door). Hall responded that numerous other dealers had signed up. Ukockis, however, continued to refuse to sign. Hall then said, "I have closed my eyes in the past to the fact you had employees and I never talked to them about signing into the union, but if you don't sign the contract I will go in the back and talk to the employees and have them sign up, too . . . . [and] picket your station .... [and] stop gas deliveries to your station because the gas truck drivers are part of the union also and they will obey us." But Ukockis persisted in his refusal to sign. Threaten- ing "mass picket" by the Union of all stations which had not signed up with Local 705, Hall promised to return. (He never did so.) At this time, as well as during the latter half of 1970, Ukockis had three (one full- and two regular part- time) employees. Notwithstanding Ukockis' "contracts" with Local 705, as has been stated, at no time did any of his employees belong to Local 705 nor did Hall ever even claim to represent any employee, nor did Ukockis ever observe any provision (including union scale wages) of any of those "contracts." Ukockis' gross revenue at his service station in 1970 was approximately $150,000, of which about 70 percent was from gasoline sales. Peter Ukockis' testimony was totally uncontradicted and uncross-examined. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning him established by substantial credible evidence. 73. Instance 74: Vance Service Station (1590 S. Elmhurst Rd., Mt. Prospect, Ill.) Upon substantially identical complaint allegations, General Counsel witness, Richard Vance, testified that he has been the owner and operator of the Standard Oil service station at 1590 South Elmhurst Road, Mt. Prospect, Illinois, under the trade name Mt. Prospect Standard Oil Service Station, since February 1968. That service station is located on a street intersection comer , with other gas stations (Phillips, Enco, and Mobil) on each of the other three comers. In July 1968, Vance observed four men-three of whom turned out to be Teamsters Local 705 Business Agents Spizzeri, Ligurotus, and Dibenardo-picketing with signs at the Enco station on one of the other comers; they also stopped a truck seeking to enter that station, which they did not enter. After the men visited the Mobil station on still another comer, they entered Vance's station, where Local 705 spokesman, Spizzeri, said to Vance, "Here's the pen, sign on this line here." When Vance said that he wanted to speak to his lawyer, Spizzeri answered, "We have no time for that" and threatened to stop gasoline deliveries to Vance's station by "park[ing] my cars on your [gasoline] fills" if Vance did not sign then and there. When Vance pleaded to let him think about it overnight, Spizzeri refused and threatened further that if Vance did not sign the Local 705 "contract" (a preprinted 3-year form for 1967-70) then and there "I will make every man in your station join," but if he signed then and there only two TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 20 employees would have to join since "Louis wants two." Vance said he only had two full-time employees. (In fact, at this time, excluding himself, Vance had nine employees -one full-time mechanic and eight regular part-time employees.) At this, Spizzen said "Tell you what, we will make it simple, we will call it a partnership, [just] you and your brother-you take one card and you don't have to feel sorry for the other fellows then if that is the way we have to do it"-although Vance never had a partnership or brother there with him-indeed, his brother lived 200 miles away. Spizzeri thereupon added the word "PARTNERSHIP" on the "agreement" and Vance signed it. At no time did Spizzeri or any other Local 705 representative indicate in any way that Local 705 represented any employee. After signing this "agreement," Vance paid union initiation fees on himself and on his mechanic, Krueger (not even a member of the purported "bargaining unit"), as well as union "dues" and health and welfare contributions (the latter, but not the initiation fee, withheld from Krueger's salary). Shortly after Krueger (the mechanic) left Vance's employ in July 1969, Local 705 Business Agent Tony Lapiana came around to pick up "collections." When Vance informed him that Krueger no longer worked there, Lapiana asked who Vance was "putting in" in his place, but Vance refused. In November 1970 (while Vance was a member of GRAMC, with its distinctive membership emblem promi- nently displayed in his station's front window), Local 705 Business Agent Lapiana put before Vance a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "contract," telling Vance that it was "Time to sign the new . . . . contract . . . . you know what will happen if you don't sign it." Lapiana also told Vance that, although he could not "guarantee" it, it would probably continue to be all right for Vance to "leave it as just one man" (i .e., Vance himself) "in" the Union. At this time, excluding himself Vance had nine (two full- and seven part-time) employees, none of whom was a union member; during all of 1970, station owner Vance himself was the only "Union member." On Lapiana's September 1971 visit to the station, Vance informed him that he would make no further payments to Local 705 because an NLRB agent had advised him he need not do so. When Lapiana said, "Well, you know what will happen to you. All the bad guys," Vance replied, "I guess I am going to find out because you can leave now." Vance's 1970 gross revenue at his service station was approximately $469,000, of which about 80 percent was from gasoline sales. Again, Vance's testimony stands wholly uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning Richard Vance established by substantial credible eviden- ce. 74. Instance 75: Vinyard Service Station (7400 W. Roosevelt Rd., Forest Park, I11.) Again upon substantially identical complaint allegations, General Counsel witness , Kenneth Vinyard, testified that he has owned and operated the Martin Oil service station at 7400 West Roosevelt Road, Forest Park (a Chicago suburb), since February 1970, after having been the manager (and a member of Local 705) there for Martin Oil Company, all eight of whose employees there he initially retained. In March 1970-a month after he took over ownership of the service station-Vinyard was visited there by Local 705 Business Agent "Eddie" Miller, who informed him that "You will have to sign a contract and it [i.e., this station] will have to run just like it did when it was [Martin Oil] company operated." When Vinyard expressed doubt that he could do that and survive economically, Miller's response was that if he signed no contract there could be pickets and his gasoline supplies cut off. Vinyard asked for a week or 10 days to ponder this. When Miller returned a week or so later, Vinyard told him he thought he " can put four men in the union," to which Miller assented, and Vinyard thereupon signed the preprinted Local 705 3-year contract (1967-70). Miller left union membership dues- checkoff authorization cards, which Vinyard subsequently gave to the three employees Vinyard wanted to put in the Union and at his behest those three employees signed the cards. Miller had never asked how many employees there were nor did he claim to represent any; no provision of the ""contract" was discussed, nor did Miller ask what pay the employees were receiving, nor did Vinyard ever pay Union scale. At this time, excluding himself Vinyard had seven (two full- and five regular part-time) employees. At no time was Miller observed to have any contact with any employee; however, he called regularly to make "collec- tions" Pron. Vinyard. Around November 1970 Local 705 Business Agent Edward Miller presented a new 3-year (1970-73 ) preprint. ed Local 705 contract to Vinyard, who then still had seven (two full- and five regular part-time) employees (excluding himself), of whom three (including a possible supervisor, plus Vinyard himself) were "in" the Union and on whom Vinyard was making regular payments to Local 705.91 At no time did Miller ask Vinyard how many employees he had, nor what wages he was paying, nor claim to represent any employee; nor was the "contract" negotiated in any way, nor did Vinyard observe its provisions, nor did Local 705 ever object to Vinyard's nonpayment of union scale as called for by its "contract" with him. When Vinyard told Miller he could not afford to pay Local 705 wage rates. Miller told him to "do the best you can do." Vinyard signed the "contract" and Miller continued to make "collections." The distinctive membership emblem of GRAMC-of which Vinyard has been a member and which he has designated as his collective-bargaining representative since February 1970-has been prominently displayed in the Vinyard service station window continuously since Febru- ary 1970. From February through December 1970, the gross revenues of Vinyard at his station were approximate- ly $680,000, around 75 percent of which were from gasoline sales. Again, as in all other instances described and to be described, the service station owner's testimony stands 91 During cross-examination, I sustained Vinyard's constitutional plea the employees' pay the "dues" and other sums he was paying on their against self-incrimination on questioning about whether he deducted from "behalf" to Local 705. 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wholly uncontradicted, Respondent having without expla- nation failed to produce any witnesses. Crediting the described testimony, I find the complaint allegations concerning Kenneth Vinyard established by substantial credible evidence. 75. Instance 76: Vaughn & McCaskill Service Station (7126 S. Stony Island Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Upon the usual allegations, General Counsel witness, Pierce Vaughn, testified that, in equal partnership with Ben McCaskill, he owned and operated the "Phillips 66" Oil service station at 7126 South Stony Island Avenue, Chicago, from July 1, 1970, to around July 1971, about a year, at which time he (and McCaskill) sold the gasoline and repair shop portion of the station but retained (and still has, with McCaskill) the body and fender repair shop portion. In July 1970, right after he took over the station, Vaughn was visited by Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri, who asked how many employees he had in the Union. Vaughn told him one-Longfellow (the only retained employee of the former owner), and at Spizzeri's behest signed a preprinted Local 705 contract and paid "Union dues," possibly relating to a past period, on Longfellow. At this time, exclusive of its owners, the station had four (two full- and two part-time) employees; as already stated, only Longfellow was in the Union. Spizzeri did not claim to represent any employee nor discuss the "contract" in any respect. Thereafter, Vaughn continued to make payments to Local 705 on Longfellow. In January 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri presented a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 contract to Vaughn for signature, and said to Vaughn he (Spizzeri) "want[ed ] more than one man in the union." Telling Spizzeri he could not have more than one, Vaughn signed the "contract," no provision of which was in any way discussed or observed (excepting, perhaps, the payments made on Longfellow). At this time, excluding the two owners (Vaughn and McCaskill), the station still had four (two full- and two part-time) employees, with only Longfellow in the Union. The Vaughn-McCaskill service station had associated itself as a member of GRAMC on July 9, 1970, continuing as such thereafter while in business as a gasoline station and displaying its distinctive membership emblem promi- nently there. The gross revenue of the station in question during the year (July 1970-July 1971) of its operation was approxi- mately $125,000. Upon the foregoing uncontradicted testimony, which I credit, I find the complaint allegations concerning Pierce Vaughn and Ben McCaskill established by substantial credible evidence. 76. Instance 77: Wax Service Station (5151 W. Division St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon the usual complaint allegations, General Counsel witness, Felix Wax, testified that he owned and operated the Standard Oil service station at 5151 West Division Street, Chicago, with equal partner Kurth Lumak from April 14, 1969, to March 1970, and since the latter date as sole owner. In June 1969, Wax was visited at his station by a Local 705 representative (described except for name) at whose behest then and on a subsequent visit that he sign a collective agreement with Local 705 and put his partner Lumak in as the "Union member," he signed such a "contract" (1967-70) and placed his partner "in" and paid "dues" on him to Local 705 by check which cleared that Union's bank account. At this time, exclusive of owners Wax and Lumak, the station had three (two full-time including a mechanic, and one regular part-time) employ- ees, none of whom belonged to Local 705 ; only station half-owner Lumak was a "Union member" of Local 705. In December 1969, the Wax-Lumak partnership opened a second service station at 1754 North Central, operated by Lumak; and thereafter each partner operated one station. At this time, Wax joined Local 705 , with Lumak making payments to it for him and he (Wax) making payments to Local 705 for Lumak. When the partnership dissolved in March 1970, Wax remained at the West Division Street service station as the sole lessee and owner there, and Lumak the sole lessee and owner of the North Central station. However, notwithstanding the dissolution of the partnership and the fact that Lumak was no longer at or in any way connected with Wax's West Division Street station, Wax continued making payments to Local 705 on Lumak as the West Division Street station's "Union member" under the "contract" with Local 705 (as did Lumak at the North Central in relation to Wax, who likewise had nothing to do with that station), until September 1971-when, because Wax learned that Lumak was not making payments to Local 705 on Wax, Wax in turn stopped making payments to Local 705 on Lumak and started to make payments to Local 705 on himself (the station owner).- but still on no employee, since no employee was a union member. Wax associated himself with GRAMC and designated it as his collective-bargaining representative in July 1970, and has since then prominently displayed in his station's front window its distinctive membership emblem. In December 1970 a Local 705 Business Agent put before Wax for signature a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "contract," without in any way negotiating it or claiming to represent any employee. At this time, excluding himself Wax had four employees, all full-time (including one mechanic), with none in the Union; and Wax was making payments to Local 705 only on his former partner Lumak (who had left the station a year before) as the station's "Union member." Apparently satisfied to leave things this way, Wax signed the new 1970-73 "contract" with Local 705. The gross receipts of Wax's West Division Street station in 1970 were approximately $210,000, upwards of 75 percent from gasoline sales. The testimony of the gasoline dealer, in this case Wax, was as usual wholly uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning Felix Wax established by substantial credible evidence. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 77. Instance 78: Williams & Cross Service Station (8650 S . Morgan, Chicago, Ill.) Upon the usual complaint allegations (as amended at the trial), General Counsel witness, Henry Cross, testified- again in the invariable pattern, wholly 'without contradic- tion-that on December 14, 1969, he (with his equal partner, Joseph T. Williams) acquired and have since then owned and operated, with an entirely new workcrew, the Humble (Enco) Oil service station at 8650 South Morgan, Chicago. Soon thereafter, in February 1970, Teamsters Local 705 Business Agents (Reverend) James Jackson and George Gilmore paid a visit to the service station, where Jackson told Cross he would like to have two employees in the Union and that it didn't matter which two. Stating to Cross that the former owner (none of whose employees was working there) had had three employees in the Union, Jackson told Cross that "being that [you're] a [black] brother, [I] will settle for two." Cross said he was not interested. Jackson suggested that Cross speak to his partner, Williams, and that "Mr. Spizzen" would be back to see him. When Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri appeared at the station soon thereafter, and Spizzeri also said, "All [I] want[ed] [is] dust two, [I don't] care which two, as long as it [is ] two" in the Union, Cross-who had discussed the matter with his partner Williams-signed the contract. Spizzeri thereupon urged them to sign for "health and welfare," indicating that that was what the signature cards were for that he presented. So, Williams (Cross' 50- percent partner and half owner of the station) signed "health and welfare" checkoff cards for himselfand Henry Cross (the other half owner) signed the name of his son Dinny (Danny, "Dinni") Cross (employed at the station as a gasoline attendant).92 At this time, excluding the partners themselves, the station had two employees (Dinny Cross and Conway). Thereafter, Spizzeri called at the station quarterly for "collections," which he made on half-owner Williams and on Dinny Cross, but he was never observed talking to any employee. In December 1970 or January 1971, the existing situation-still with two employees (Danny Cross and Conway) and payments to the Union on Owner Williams and on Dinny Cross-was continued with Cross' signing of a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted "contract" with Team- sters Local 705. Then, as previously and thereafter, at no time did any Local 705 representative ask how many employees there were, or present any evidence or =ndica- tion that he represented any employee, or claim to represent any employee, or inquire concerning wages being paid, or in any way negotiate any provision of the "contract"; nor did the station owners observe any provision of the "contract"-they merely made payments to the Union on half-owner Williams and on Dinny Cross. The station ownership had affiliated itself with GRAMC as a member in January 1970, continuously and conspicu- ously displaying on its front door the GRAMC distinctive membership emblem; and on September 5, 1970, a formal 92 A few days after Spizzeri's visit, Local 705 Business Agents Jackson and Gilmore returned to the station to "check and see if we signed the 271 bargaining representation designation was executed to GRAMC. In April or May 1971 Spizzeri warned Cross and Williams that if Williams' "dues" payments to Local 705 were not kept up, the Union could cause "trouble"; that GRAMC would not prevail in court; and that they had better pay up. They nevertheless stopped making payments to Local 705 in July 1971. The 1970 gross revenue of their station was around $350,000, with 80 percent from gasoline sales. As usual, the dealer's testimony stands wholly uncon- tradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning Joseph T. Williams and Henry Cross and their gasoline service station established by substantial credible evidence. 78. Instance 79: Windzio Service Station (101 N. LaGrange Rd., LaGrange, Ill.) Upon the familiar allegations, General Counsel witness Wally Windzio testified that he owned and operated the Shell Oil service station at 101 North LaGrange Road, LaGrange, Illinois, for about a year after acquiring it on August 3, 1970. About 2 weeks after he opened his service station, Windzio received a visit from "Red"-otherwise identified as Local 705 Business Agent Raymond Kolb-who put a preprinted Local 705 contract before him and told him to sign it. In response to a question by "Red" Kolb, Windzio informed him he had, in addition to himself, two (one full- and one part-time) employees. Kolb said, "A station like this needs at least one guy in the union." Windzio protested that he could not afford it. When Kolb suggested Windzio himself could be the man, Windzio agreed so that he himself could be eligible for employees' health and welfare benefits. At no time did Kolb claim to act on behalf of or to represent any employee. About a month later Local 705 Business Agent "Red" Kolb returned, this time insisting that it was time for Windzio to sign up and threatening to "demonstrate" with signs and to picket so that customers would be "afraid to drive in" and that Windzio would be unable to obtain gasoline deliveries at his station since the truckdrivers "belong to the same union" and would not make deliveries. "Scared," Windzio thereupon signed the preprinted 3-year (1970-73) "contract" and "put" himself into the Union as the service station's only "Union man." At this time, excluding himself (he did mostly mechanical work), Windzio had two (one full- and one part-time) employees, neither of them a union member. Windzio had been affiliated with GRAMC and promi- nently displayed its distinctive membership emblem in his station window since early September 1970, and executed a formal bargaining authorization designation to it on December 3, 1970. A purported union dues-checkoff authorization card for Windzio, produced by Respondent Union, is not signed by Windzio, nor is any writing on that card that of Windzio. Windzio's gross receipts at his service station for the 12 contract for the Union." After ascertaining they had, Jackson attempted to sell them a watch or watches. 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD months he operated it (August 1970-71) were approximate- ly $200,000. Once again, the testimony of the gasoline service station dealer stands wholly uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning Wally Windzio established by substantial credible evidence. 79. Instance 80: Wintercorn Service Station (2 W. 111th St., Chicago, Ill.) Upon the usual familiar complaint allegations, General Counsel witness, Frank A. Wintercorn, testified that he owns and operates two Standard Oil service stations-one (2 West 111th Street at State Street, Chicago) since March 1953, and another (in Orland (Olean?) Park, a Chicago suburb), since July 14, 1971. We are here concerned only with the first of these. Wintercorn has been signing 3-year "collective agree- ments" with Teamsters Local 705 since 1953. In 1960, when Wintercorn had 13 (6 full- and 7 part-time) employees, with only 3, a minority, in the Union, the Local 705 representative asked that 2 more be added. Wintercorn did so, raising the number of his Local 705 employees to five-still a definite minority. This situation continued until 1970, during which he continued to sign "collective agreements" with Local 705, while having only this minority of Local 705 employees, with regard to whom he made payments to Local 705 of about $30 per month for "dues" plus about $125 per month for "health and welfare" contributions. In November or December 1970, Teamsters Local 705 Business Agent George White presented to Wintercorn a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "collective agreement," which Wintercom signed. At that time, Wintercorn had 13 (6 full- and 7 regular part-time) employees, with only 4, or in any event a minority, "in" the Union (plus Wintercorn himself); however, the purported four employees "in" the Union, on whom he was making payments to the Union, included the station manager, an employee who had quit 2 years earlier in 1968, and his brother who had also quit in 1968. Thus, out of 13 employees, Wintercorn had only 2 (including the station manager) "in" the Union. But Local 705 Business Agent White picked up the "collections" regularly on the others-no longer at the station, for as long as 2 years-as well, without inquiry of any kind.93 White was never observed to talk to any of the employees. Wintercorn has been a member of GRAMC since 1953 and on its board of directors since around 1968; its distinctive membership emblem has been displayed promi- nently in his station window since 1970, and on September 22, 1970 he also executed to it - formal collective bargaining authorization designation. In 1970 gross receipts at the Wintercorn service station were approximately $455,000, over 75 percent from gasoline sales. Again, the testimony of Wintercorn stands totally uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allega- tions concerning Frank A. Wintercorn established by substantial credible evidence. 80. Instance 81: Zavorka Service Station (3625 W. 127th St., Alsip, Ill.) Upon the usual allegations, General Counsel witness, James Zavorka, also testified without any contradiction that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil Service Station at 3625 West 127th Street, Alsip (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, with an entirely new crew of employees. In July 1969 Zavorka received a visit from Local 705 Business Agent Nicholas, who asked him if he "wanted to join the union." Zavorka declined the invitation. Nicholas returned around August 1, 1969, on the same mission, but this time with a Local 705 contract, which Zavorka signed, although Nicholas never claimed to represent any employ- ee, did not ask how many employees there were, nor discuss any provision of the "contract." Thereafter, Zavorka began making regular payments to Local 705 on one employee (James Tross), although he had about six (two full- and four regular part-time) employees. Although Nicholas called regularly-monthly or so-for "collec- tions," at no time was he observed to speak to any employee. And Zavorka did not observe the provisions of his "contract" with Teamsters Local 705, nor did that Union apparently know or care. From 1969 to 1971 with a workcrew of five (two full- and three part-time) employees, Zavorka made payments to Local 705 on at most one employee. In April or May 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Nicholas asked Zavorka if he would sign another contract with his Union. Zavorka said, "Not really." Nicholas thereupon threatened, "I hate to close you up, shut off your gas and picket your station." So, Zavorka again signed a "contract" with Local 705. At this time, excluding himself Zavorka had three (one full- and two regular part- time) employees and was making payments to Local 705 on none of them, but "just [on ] myself" (Zavorka). (Local 705 records bear this out .) Also on this occasion, as all along, the Local 705 business agent did not even claim to represent any employee. Zavorka became a member of GRAMC in September 1969, since when he has continuously displayed its distinctive membership emblem prominently at his service station, which in 1970 had a gross revenue of about $289,000, approximately 75 percent thereof from gasoline sales. As has already been stated, the testimony of Zavorka was wholly uncontradicted . Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning James Zavorka have been established by substantial credible evidence. 81. Instance 82: Zichittella Service Station (1152 S. Western Ave., Chicago, Ill.) Subsequent to the conclusion of the trial in Case 13-CB-3571, consisting of the foregoing 81 instances es At the trial, I sustained Wintercorn's plea of constitutional privilege Although my reasons for this ruling (also affecting some subsequent against self-incrimination when Respondent sought on cross-examination to witnesses, described supra herein) are explicated upon the record and I die it from hun whether his payments to Local 705 were deducted from the allowed Respondent ample time to seek review thereof, Respondent chose pay of the employees on whose behalf they were purportedly made. not to appeal. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 273 which have been described, the parties entered into a stipulation, finalized on November 30, 1972, which on their joint applicant I accepted by my order of December 7, 1972, in lieu of reopening the record and conducting a further hearing. That stipulation (and my order of consolidation of October 17, 1972) in effect adds another case (Case 13-CB-4457) to the foregoing, which for purposes of convenience is here described, with findings, as instance 82, since as to pleadings and proof it follows essentially the same pattern as the 81 instances which have already been detailed. The following findings are accord- ingly based upon the parties' said stipulation. Anthony Zichittella has since February 16, 1972-i.e., subsequent to the trial herein-been the owner and operator of a Save-Way Service Station known as Roosevelt Save- Way, at 1152 South Western Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. For the 6-month period from March 1-September 1, 1972, the gross revenue derived from the operation of that service station was approximately $340,000 (around 80 percent from gasoline sales), with over $5,000 worth of products shipped there directly in interstate commerce. (Projected over a year, the 6-month figure would be approximately $680,000.) When Zichittella took this station over from Save-Way Company, he retained there seven of Save-Way Company's employees, two of whom (Thompson and Townzell) were members of Local 705, under a collective agreement (to Zichittella's knowledge) between Save-Way Company and Local 705 covering that as well as another service station located elsewhere. At the time Zichittella took over ownership and operation of the station here involved, Thompson and Townzell (the two Local 705 members) were the only two, out of seven, employees receiving the wages called for by the Local 705 contract with Save-Way Company. In March or April 1972-shortly after Zichittella took the station over, Local 705 Business Agent Tony Lapiana called on him there and informed him that "You still have two men in the Union" and that he (Lapiana) would let it go at that, although he knew Zichittella had seven employees, provided Zichittella made dues and health and welfare payments to Local 705 on these two "Union" men. When Zichittella informed Lapiana that he was already making payments on Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage through Save-Way Company on these two men, Lapiana replied that Zichittella could not do it that way anymore, but that he had to sign a contract (i.e., 3-year preprinted contract for 1970-73) with Local 705 and pay health and welfare contributions to Local 705 or else "the Union would picket Zichittella's station and stop his gasoline deliveries." Zichittella did not sign the Local 705 contract on this occasion. Zichittella returned around May 11, 1972, accompanied by an associate, and, presenting the same contract to Zichittella, told Zichittella that they were there on "the health and welfare for the two men" and that Zichittella "must sign the contract." After Lapiana informed Zichit- tella that the reason he "must sign a new contract" was that "the two men in the Union had to have health and welfare from the Union as provided by the contract and that this was "necessary," Zichittella signed, with Lapia- na's associate filling in the blank spaces and backdating it to April 1, 1972, and telling Zichittella that the "quarter" had already begun. Zichittella then also paid union dues and health and welfare contributions to Local 705 on the two men (Thompson and Townzell), by checks which he signed after they also were filled out by Lapiana's associate. At this time, Lapiana had seven full time employees, with only the foregoing two (Thompson and Townzell) in the Union. At no time did the Local 705 representatives display or offer to display any cards or other evidence that they represented any of Zichittella's employees, nor did they claim to represent a majority of the employees. At no time was there any negotiation of any provision of the "contract" which Zichittella thus signed. Zichittella did not expressly tell the Local 705 spokesmen that he was represented for bargaining purposes by GRAMC, although Zichittella had continuously since February 22, 1972, been a member of GRAMC and had expressly designated it as his collective-bargaining agent and had also continuously since February 22 displayed its distinctive membership emblem conspicuously in his station front window so as to be plainly visible. Upon the foregoing facts, established as aforesaid by stipulation without cross-examination or countervailing proof, I find the allegations of the complaint in Case 13-CB-4457, essentially as there set forth, concerning Anthony Zichittella established by substantial credible evidence. C. Discussion No less than 82 instances have been detailed establishing a consistent and well-defined and organized pattern of unlawful conduct by Respondent Teamsters Local 705 so flagrant, egregious, widespread, and long-continued as to arouse wonderment whether paralleled in Board annals and why the multiple arms of the law have been so long withheld. (The record indicates these practices may have flourished for 15 or more years.) Respondent's unexplained total failure to present any witnesses to raise factual issues for practical purposes precludes waffling on its part concerning the events described. No less than 10,000 employees in the gasoline service stations of the Metropoli- tan Chicago area are said to be involved. The overall pattern shown consisted of strong-arm demands by Teamsters Local 705 that the gasoline dealer sign it imposed, preprinted 3-year "contract" without negotiation or possibility of negotiation. That "contract" involved recognition by the gasoline dealer of Local 705 as his employees' exclusive collective-bargaining representative with mandatory dues-checkoff and other payments to Local 705 and required membership therein, even though a majority of the station's employees and in some cases none belonged to Local 705. This was accomplished through threats of "drying up" the station by cutting off its gasoline deliveries-the sine qua non of the station's existence-by the gasoline delivery truckdrivers, members of the same union (Local 705) and who, as is stipulated, made the gasoline deliveries to these Chicago gasoline stations. The pattern of Teamsters Local 705's operations here makes it evident that that Union was interested solely in collecting moneys from the Chicago gasoline dealers, regardless of their actual source, rather than in protecting the interests 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee members whom a union normally serves or is expected to serve. In many cases, with the knowing acquiescence and even at the urging of Local 705, the station owners themselves, rather than the employees, were coerced into "membership" in Local 705; in some cases, the station owners were the only Local 705 "members," to the exclusion of station employees. In others, mechanics -not even included in the bargaining unit-were taken in to attempt to put together a semblance of a "majority" in the bargaining unit 84 In almost all cases where employees became members of Local 705-which foisted a "contract" upon the dealers without in fact being the representative of a majority, if indeed any, of their employees-after the "contract" was signed the employees were assigned or "put" into the Union by the employer, who handpicked the employees desired by the employer to be "in" the Union, often over their protest. In some cases, the employer signed his employees' names to Local 705 membership application and dues-checkoff cards without the employees' knowledge or consent or even without telling them about it; in some cases "members" were not employed at the station at all; and in many cases the employer did not even deduct the "Union dues" from their pay, thus perfecting their ignorance that they were being reported and carried as Local 705 "members." Not only did Local 705 not negotiate or even make a pretense of negotiating any of its contracts with the Chicago gasoline dealers, but it presented no evidence that it represented employees nor did it claim to, nor did it evince any concern over the wages or other terms or conditions of their employment either before or after the perfunctory "contract" signing; all that Local 705 evinced interest in was making "collections" from the employer without concern for their actual source. There is no evidence that Local 705 ever enforced the wage or other requirements (except for its "collections" from the gasoline dealers) of any of these "contracts"; indeed, the evidence is overwhelming and undisputed that numerous dealers were expressly told by Local 705 that they need not pay the "required" (i.e., "contractual") wages at all; there were even indications that dissident employees would be "taken care of" for the employer by Local 705. Embellishments of the foregoing pattern were myriad in degree, as disclosed by the 82 illustrative instances exposed. In a word, Respondent's activities here constituted sheer racketeering. That activities of the described nature are seriously violative of at least the Act brooks of no question and is so well established that extended discussion would be superfluous (as well as encyclopedic) here. One might begin, in a case like this, with a reminder, which should be unnecessary, that as a matter of contract law a coerced "agreement" may be avoided, more particularly by third parties (here, employees) whose rights and obligations are thereby purportedly defined and regulated. Beyond that, it is- abundantly settled that the 94 Regular part-time employees, having a community of interest as they do with full-time employees here (other than mechanics, who are not included in the bargaining units) are properly to be considered included in the appropriate collective-bargaining units at the gasoline service stations here both as a matter of Board law (see, e g, Airlines Parking, Inc, 196 NLRB 1018; enfd. 470 F.2d 994, (C.A. 6, 1972), The May Department Stores Company, 181 NLRB 710; Chester County Beer Distributors Association, 133 making of a contract between employer and union containing a union-security provision without a majority of the affected employees having validly selected the union as a bargaining agent is unlawful under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act and void "in its entirety," and confers neither rights upon the union nor obligations upon the employees. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union [Bernhard- Altmann Texas Corp.] v. N.LR.B., 366 U.S. 731, 737(1961). Such conduct among other things strikes at basic protec- tions of workers which it was the Act's central purpose to secure; viz, their right to bargain collectively (if they so desire) through representatives of their own free choice. Republic Steel Corporation v. N.LRB., 311 U.S. 7.95 Union solicitation, execution, maintenance, and enforcement of such a contract containing union-security and dues-check- off provisions restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(b)(IXA) of the Act; and they also cause the employer to discriminate against its employees in violation of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Seine and Line Fishermen's Union, 374 F.2d 974, 977-78 (C.A. 9, 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 913; Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd, 197 NLRB 805. Furthermore, Respondent's actions in consistently bypass- ing GRAMC and soliciting gasoline dealers to deauthorize it as their collective-bargaining representative restrained and coerced the gasoline dealers in their choice of bargaining representative, in violation of Section 8(b)(IXB) of the Act. Finally, Respondent's refusal to bargain collectively with any gasoline dealers whose employees it may have represented at any specific time, concerning its imposed and required "contract" violated Section 8(bX3) of the Act. The dismal narrative spelled out in the 82 illustrative instances here detailed includes numerous other unlawful actions comprising the wide-ranging, atrocious constella- tion exposed. For example, it is of course violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) for a union to give effect to a contract including a union-security and checkoff provision when the employer without employees' authorization pays his employees' required union dues out of his own funds instead of by deduction from their wages. Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd, supra at 1248. And coerced inclusion of employers themselves, as typically here, in the "collective bargaining units"-indeed, sometimes the employers alone, to the total exclusion of their employees-is likewise a violation of the Act: with whom in such a "collective bargaining unit" does the employer bargain-himse; and for whom does the employer vote in a union or other non- Board election-himself? Cf. Mechling Barge Lines, 197 NLRB 592. For similar reasons as interfering with if not choking off employees' rights to unsaddled democratic selection of collective bargaining representatives (if they desire to bargain collectively), as well as encouraging membership not only in a union (if employees do not so desire) but one of their employer's preference, continued NLRB 771, 774) and because concededly so included under Respondent's own collective agreements (Joint Exh. I and G.C. Exh. 5) 95 Indeed, even good-faith belief in a union's majority status is no justification for recognition of a minority union, "for, even if mistakenly, the employees' rights have been invaded." ILGWU [Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp J v N.L.R.B, supra at 739. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 275 checkoff of dues of employees who (as here) have left the employer's employ, and continued carrying of them as "collective bargaining unit" members-to say nothing of carrying shadow "members" who were never in the unit-is likewise violative of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. Cf. Industrial Towel and Uniform Service, a Division of Cavalier Industries, Inc., 195 NLRB 1121, reversed on other grounds 473 F.2d 1258, (C.A. 6, 1973) 96 97 The 82 instances which have been uncovered overwhelm- ingly establish a clear pattern of violations so serious and pervasive in character and extent as to require stringent remedial measures. Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. At all material times, Respondent Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Union, Local No. 705, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. B. At all material times, as hereinabove set forth and found in sections II and III, supra, various employers therein identified and found, have been and are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act; and there has been established, with regard to them and other employers in their industry, being the gasoline service station dealers in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, a pervasive pattern of substantially identical or similar unlawful conduct directed at and affecting all of said enterprises and industry and the employees thereof and the general public served thereby, such as to justify and require assertion of jurisdiction herein so as to make any remedy herein effective in carrying out the policies of the Act. C. In view of the facts established in the 82 instances reviewed supra, herein, and upon the record as a whole, assertion of jurisdiction herein so as to reach all of the gasoline service station dealers and industry and their employees in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, is warranted and proper. D. By its conduct set forth in section III, supra, Respondent Teamsters Local 705 has engaged in and is continuing to engage in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B), (2), and (3) of the Act. E. Said violations, constituting a pattern, have been 96 Respondent seeks to project into this case a former Board proceeding (13-RM-994), which Respondent describes as having concerned the question whether GRAMC could properly require Respondent to engage in multiemployer or industrywide bargaining with it However , that issue is not involved here. The complaint here does not allege that Respondent failed or refused to engage in multiemployer or industrywide bargaining with GRAMC nor that such would have been a violation of the Act. To introduce that matter into the instant proceeding would becloud and confuse this proceeding with something not in issue here . Respondent's obligation to bargain collectively with individual gasoline station dealers or with GRAMC as the authorized bargaining representative of individual gasoline station dealers, is a different issue and has been dealt with herein. For these reasons, Respondent's application, upon which ruling was reserved at the trial, to take official notice of that other proceeding (13-RM-994) and a related United States district court proceeding (70 C 2562) seeking to enjoin the Board's Regional Director, is denied, the systematic, repeated, deliberate, flagrant, widespread, and pervasive throughout the gasoline service station dealers industry in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, and calculated knowingly and deliberately to flout, disrupt, and defeat the policies and purposes of the Act. F. Said unfair labor practices and each of them have affected, are affecting, and, unless permanently restrained and enjoined, will continue to affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Perhaps particularly in view of Respondent's unex- plained total failure to call any of its business agents or representatives-implicated by name over and over in the dreary chronology of misconduct detailed in the 82 illustrative instances here reviewed-the serious question here is not whether Respondent's described pattern of activities was unlawful, but rather how to deal effectively with such emboldened and wide-ranging violation of the Act so as to stamp out the evil and prevent its recurrence. Remedial measures in a case of this magnitude and scope should be designed to bring the persisting pattern of violations to a halt and make amends and restitution therefor, and to avoid any repetition or recurrence thereof. We shall, accordingly, address ourselves to measures for the attainment of these essential objectives. A. Cease-and-Desist Remedies To begin with, there must be issued a cease-and-desist order requiring Respondent to halt unlawful activities such as have been described, and requiring recognition under the unlawfully procured contracts to be withdrawn from Local 705. Further, in view of the fact that over 80 instances, constituting a systematic pattern of atrocious illegality, have been established, I shall also provide that recognition of Local 705 be withheld in the Metropolitan Chicago gasoline service station industry for an appropri- ate period except through certification by the Board after secret ballot elections held under the Act. See, e.g., Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 441 F.2d 911, (C.A. 2), affd. 406 U.S. 272; The Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670. Charging Party's and General Counsel's objections thereto are sustained, and the related documents sought by Respondent to be introduced into the record here-marked for identification at this trial (Resp . Exhs. 90-94, inclusive, for identification)-are rejected; and the Charging Party's motion to strike out and dismiss Respondent's affirmative defense raising this matter in paragraph "XXI" of its answer is granted. 87 Respondent's Exhibits 19 and 99-107 inclusive for identification, with an accompanying offer of proof, relating to certain abortive settlement attempts and other matters deemed immaterial are rejected , and Respon- dent's affirmative defenses encompassing the same, as set forth in paragraphs XXII and XXIII of its answer, are hereby dismissed. The alleged affirmative defense set forth in paragraph XXIV of the answer was stricken out on motion, without opposition of Respondent, at the conclusion of the trial. Resp. Exh. 95 for identification (U.S. Dept. of Commerce data) is received. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Abrogation of "Contracts" and Union "Memberships" Unlawfully Obtained, Repayment of Collections Thereunder Local 705 "contracts" and "memberships" unlawfully procured should be abrogated and payments thereunder (except to the extent inequitable, as hereafter described) should be returned, with appropriate interest. Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd., 197 NLRB. 805. Such repayments should in each case be made to the person who , or for whose benefit, such payments were made ; in the case of employees who were ignorant of their "membership" in Local 705 or that any payment was being made by their employer under or in their name, the payments should be returned to the employer. "Health and welfare payments" should be similarly returned . A troublesome question arises with regard to the return of "health and welfare payments" where a claim has been made and paid by the health and welfare fund or its designee, such as for hospitalization. As to such instances, seemingly relatively few in number, for a variety of practical as well as theoretical reasons perhaps no perfect solution is possible. (E.g., should a coerced insurance payment be returned, where a benefit has been claimed and paid thereunder ?) Mindful of the core purposes of the legislative authors of the Act, the stream of judicial direction that remedial measures under the Act should be tailored so as to be effective yet fair, and considerations of practicality, I have arrived at what seems to me to be a fair reconciliation and methodology for treating these instances-also having in mind that in order to bring tipped scales into balance the law may have to lean toward protection of the wronged rather than the wrongdoer.98 This will be that in the case of any person to or for whose benefit payment has been made under a claim arising out of the health and welfare "coverage," the amount of "health and welfare" contributions to be repaid by Local 705 may be reduced by 1 year's "health and welfare" contributions , at the rates in effect from the date 6 months prior to the payment of the claim to the date 6 months subsequent to the payment of the claim; without in any way affecting the payments made or to be made upon the claim. The recommended Order will include a provision for notifying those whose payments are current, that upon receipt of the repayment they shall no longer be covered, after a brief reasonable period to obtain substitute coverage if desired. 98 One inevitably calls to mind Judge Learned Hand's observation in N LR.B v Remington Rand Inc., 94 F.2d 862, 872 (C.A. 2) that "it rest[s] upon the tortfeasor to disentangle the consequences for which it [is] chargeable from those from which it [is ] immune ." Also particularly apropos are the recent remarks of Judge McCree in National Cash Register Company v. N.LR.B, 466 F.2d 945, 969-970 (CA. 6, 1972): It may be that the reimbursement order will result in providing a windfall . and that the Board should have explored means of determining which employees actually were coerced .... By the same token, the union was not justified in remaining silent in the face of testimony about the pervasive nature of the union 's coercive tactics No employee testified that he made the payments freely and voluntarily.. . Accordingly, the Board acted well within its authority in ordering the union to reimburse all the employees. As Judge Learned Hand phrased it in an analogous context: "However, as in our decision in N.LRB. v. Revere Metal Art Co, 280 F.2d 96, 101, we will not direct the Board to make Repayments-whether of initiation, dues, or health and welfare payments-are here limited to those payments made within the 10(b) period of the Act-i.e., not more than 6 months prior to the filing of the original charge herein (filed on November 18, 1970), regardless of the date of the "contract" under which made or purportedly made. Contracts herein abrogated are similarly limited, in respects other than payments as above provided, to contracts executed within said 10(b) period.99 C. Retention of Jurisdiction Toward the close of the lengthy trial, it was indicated that perhaps as many as 300 or more additional instances and gasoline dealers' cases could be presented, within the compass of the general allegations of the complaint (or appropriate amplification thereof) in the instant proceed- ing, given sufficient time and opportunity for preparation. General Counsel pleaded that he has had insufficient staff and time to prepare and present such additional instances and that he desired to avoid delay in disposition of and relief for the 82 instances here presented in combined or conglomerate form. The Charging Party, on the other hand, contended that it had some time ago turned over its proof en masse to General Counsel, whose responsibility it was to proceed to trial thereon in full; that it would be unfair now in effect to transfer these materials back to the Charging Party to proceed with ab initio at this late date; and that in any event the Charging Party lacked the personnel, facilities, or finances to carry on a project of such magnitude, statutory responsibility for which rests upon the shoulders of General Counsel. I was and continue to be heedful of the desirability of striking a balance between these considerations, within the framework of practicability. As I indicated at the trial, I am most reluctant to, and have now decided that I will not, contribute toward possibly cutting off the important rights of any of the 300 other gasoline dealers and their employees who for one reason or another-perhaps through sheer arbitrary selection-simply did not happen to be among the 82 instances prepared and presented at this trial, which, while prolonged was nevertheless possibly truncated by General Counsel for understandable reasons of administrative expediency . I am strongly of the view that the rights of these other gasoline dealers and their employees should be preserved. To require at this time in each and every such additional an inquiry in each case how far the employee was coerced. We there said: 'hough the Board might have excluded the employees who had voluntarily signed union cards before September I from the reimbursement provision, it did not abuse its discretion in not doing so since these employees may well have remained in the union only because of the status it had unlawfully acquired. For the courts to require a determination of the attitude of each employee in every case would impose impossible administrative burdens.' N.L.R.B. v. Cadillac Wire Corp , supra, 290 F.2d at 263. ae Since the 10(b) limitation applies only to proceedings such as this, under the National Labor Relations Act before the National Labor Relations Board the above limitation of payment is without prejudice to any civil cause of action at law or otherwise to recover such sums as were paid prior to the 10(b) period . Such civil causes of action, as also causes of action at law to set aside contracts procured through duress or other illegality, would presumably be governed by whatever statute or statutes of limitations are applicable to civil suits between private parties. TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 277 instance a trial of the magnitude and duration of the instant trial would frustrate and could defeat the rights of those parties and their employees and thwart the ends of justice.' I shall therefore provide for what I believe to be a fair and feasible alternative in this highly unusual situation, mindful that the genius of the administrative law process is its flexible practicality . I shall include in the recommended Order a provision under which continuing jurisdiction is retained herein for the purpose of entertaining ad hoc applications for supplemental relief at the foot of the Order and for granting summary relief thereon as warranted, without the necessity for repetitive trials unless required with regard to specific issues of fact expressly tendered in good faith ; and for the imposition of costs if unjustifiably proliferating relitigation of issues is indulged in.2 D. Posting of Notices In view of the widescale pattern of illegal conduct exposed, permeating the gasoline service station industry and its estimated 10,000 or more employees in the Metropolitan Chicago area, and in order to promote the objective of stamping out such abuses , I shall include in the recommended Order the provision that the notices to be posted may be posted in all gasoline service stations in that area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties, Illinois). See, e.g., Texas Gulf Sulphur Company v. N.LR.B., 463 F.2d 778, 779 (C.A. 5, 1972); J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. N.LR.B., 417 F.2d 533 (C.A. 5, 1969); N.LRB. v. District 65, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, 375 F.2d 745, 747 (C.A. 2); NLRB. v. Lummus Co., 210 F.2d 377, 381 (C.A. 5); Teamsters, Local 901 [Associated Federal Hotels], 193 NLRB 591, 599; District 65, Retail etc. Union [The St. John Associates, Inc.], 157 NLRB 615, 625-626, enfd. 375 F.2d 745, 747 (C.A. 2): "If the much used phrase `law and order' is to have any meaning in our society, the Board's decision supporting these words must be enforced. The manner in which the Union proceeded justifies the broadest type of order." E. Referral to Attorney General of the United States 6 The flagrant, egregious, widespread, and corrupting nature of the pattern of practices here pursued mandates that they be referred to the Attorney General of the United States for appropriate action .3 Such reference will accord- ingly here be made. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this consolidat- i Such new proceedings could, for example, be subject to 10(b) defenses, even though the charge as filed herein was sufficiently broad to include all such additional instances and dealers . Cf., e g., International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union /McLoughhn Manufacturing Corporation] v N LRB., 463 F.2d 907,921-23 (C.A.D.C., 1972). 2 The Charging Party's application for costs at this time is denied, with some reluctance, since in my opinion it has considerable merit, even a fortiori Tudee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234, and 196 NLRB 158, particularly in view of Respondent's failure to present even a single witness to controvert the massive testimony adduced in the 82 described instances, thereby subjecting General Counsel to the seemingly avoidable gargantuan trial task thrust upon him . Nevertheless, I shall not award costs here because the heavy laboring oar was plied by General Counsel who does not seek costs, and also because I have not fared well with a previous ed proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER4 A. It is hereby ordered that: Respondent, Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Union, Local No. 705, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and its officers, representatives, and agents, shall forthwith: 1. Cease and desist from: a. In any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce, or performing or giving effect to, any collective agreement or contract found in section III hereof, to have been obtained through coercion, restraint, or unlawful threat against any employer or in interference with the right of his employees freely to select (or to refrain from selecting) a collective- bargaining representative of their own choice, or in interference with any other right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or when said Respondent did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees of said employer in an appropriate collective- bargaining unit, or otherwise unlawfully under said Act. b. In any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce, or performing or giving effect to, any collective agreement or contract obtained under circumstances substantially the same as or similar to those found in section III hereof, through coercion, restraint, or unlawful threat against any gasoline service station owner or dealer in the Metropoli- tan Chicago area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties), Illinois, or in interference with the right of his employees freely to select (or to refrain from selecting) a collective- bargaining representative of their own choice, or in interference with any other right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act as amended, or when said Respondent did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees of said employer in an appropriate collective- bargaining unit, or otherwise unlawfully under said Act. c. In any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce payment or collection of initiations , dues, assessments, health and welfare contributions, or other payments required under or in relation to or under color of any obligation or purported obligation arising out of any collective agreement or contract referred to in sections A, 1, a or A, 1, b of this Order, or under any membership in Respondent or dues checkoff or other payment require- ment to Respondent by virtue thereof. d. Seeking recognition or acting or purporting to act as exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees recommendation along that line (cf. Russell Motors, Inc., 198 NLRB No. 58, 80 LRRM 1757, 1759-60). I have, however, made the above provision for costs in the event Respondent indulges in unjustifiable, repetitive litigation of other instances of a substantially identical character without adducing countervailing proof raising genuine issues. 3 Without reference to U.S. Code provisions, see, e .g, Act., § 302, U.S. v. Lanni, 466 F.2d 1102 (C.A. 3); U.S. v. Ferrara, 458 F.2d 868 (CA. 2), cert. denied 408 U.S. 931; Sweater Bee by Banff, lid, 197 NLRB 805. 4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and the recommended Order which follows, herein , shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of any employer, unless said Respondent is in fact the duly authorized collective-bargaining representative of an un- coerced majority of said employees in a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes; arias further, for a period of 5 years from the date of this Order, seeking such recognition from any gasoline service station owner or dealer (or acting or purporting to so act on behalf of the employees of such owner or dealer) in the Metropolitan Chicago area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties), Illinois, unless said Respondent has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board to be such representative following a secret ballot election or elections held by said Board in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act as amended. e. Utilizing employers, owners, officials, supervisors, or agents of an employer to unionize, or to attempt to unionize, or to enlist or induce employees into membership in Respondent, or to be represented by Respondent, or to assist Respondent in organizing such employees. f. Causing or attempting to cause any employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of Section 8(aX3) of said Act. g. Coercing an employer to enter into a recognitional and collective agreement under threat of preventing merchandise deliveries to the employer in violation of said Act. h. Representing, or claiming or purporting to represent, a majority of employees of an employer in an appropriate collective-bargaining unit upon the basis of the member- ship of the employer or supervisors within the meaning of the Act. i. Requiring employees to be placed into, or to hold membership in, Respondent upon the basis of provisions of a collective agreement executed when Respondent was not the duly authorized representative of an uncoerced majority of employees of an appropriate collective-bar- gaining unit of such employees. j. Collecting or seeking to collect or accepting dues, initiation fees, assessments, health and welfare contri- butions, or other payments required by Respondent from or for persons not lawfully members of Respondent, upon the asserted or purported basis of such membership. k. If and to the extent that Respondent may at any time be the duly authorized exclusive collective-bargaining representative of an appropriate bargaining unit of employees, refusing to bargain collectively with the employer of such employees; or, bypassing or otherwise in violation of the Act failing or refusing to bargain collectively with any gasoline service station owner or dealer in the Metropolitan Chicago area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties), Illinois, through his duly authorized collective-bargaining representative, including Gasoline Retailers Association of Metropolitan Chicago. 1. In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: a. Within 20 days from the date of this Order, repay to each employer or employee from whom any moneys have been collected or received under or in connection with any collective agreement or contract referred to in section A, 1, a of this Order, all such moneys plus 6-percent interest thereon from the date of collection or receipt thereof by Respondent; provided, however, that (1) in any case where there has been paid to or on behalf of any such person a hospitalization or other "health and welfare " claim, there may be deducted from the refund of the "health and welfare" contributions portion of such repayment, the amount of one year's "health and welfare" contributions of such person, calculated at the rates of contributions in effect from a date 6 months prior to the payment of such claim to the date 6 months subsequent to such payment. Any claim(s) payment(s) heretofore or hereafter made shall be unaffected by this Order, as shall any accrued obligation to make or to continue to make st, . payment(s) on such claim(s); (2) there shall be no obligation on the part of any person who has received payment of any "health and welfare" claim, to repay all or part thereof by reason of any provision of this Order; (3) to the extent necessary to effectuate the intent of this provision of this Order, Respondent shall if legally required reimburse any health and welfare fund, insurer, carrier, or servicing institution, organization, or person; 5 and (4) each such repayment shall be accompanied by a written notice (with blank spaces filled in) as follows: IMPORTANT NOTICE The National Labor Relations Board has determined that collection by Teamsters Local 705 of Union initiation fees, dues, assessments, and health and welfare payments from you or for your account, has been unlawful in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. The enclosed check payable to you in the amount of $- is in repayment thereof for the period from date to date YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED THAT HEALTH AND WELFARE (INCLUDING HOSPITALIZATION) COVERAGE FOR YOU THROUGH LOCAL 705 WILL AUTOMATICALLY CEASE ON THE THIRTIETH DAY AFTER YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE AT ONCE MAKE OTHER ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUBSTITUTE COVERAGE IF YOU DESIRE. This Notice is sent to you in accordance with the Order of the National Labor Relations Board. Dated: Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Union, Local No. 705, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of 5 Cf. e.g., Local 964, Carpenters, 181 NLRB 948, 955; Teamsters, Local v. N.LR.B, 450 F.2d 942 (C.A 3). 560 [Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.], 187 NLRB 850, 865-866, enfd sub nom Rosen TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. b. Upon demand by the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board, or by any signatory to any collective agreement or contract referred to in A, l,a of this Order, or signatory of any dues checkoff or other payment authorization related thereto, forthwith surrender to such person any such collective agreement or contract, dues checkoff, or other payment authorization, executed by him under circumstances herein found in section III , steprq to have been unlawful. c. Upon demand by said Regional Director, make available to hun or other Board agent , for examination and copying, and all currently deemed valid (i.e., by Respon- dent) collective agreements or contracts, as well as any dues checkoff or other payment authorizations and records, of the Employers herein referred to in A,l,a, and all records reflecting payments to Respondent thereunder or by virtue thereof. d. Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examina- tion and copying, all records and reports necessary to analyze the amounts to be repaid under, or otherwise to determine the extent of compliance with, this Order. e. Post at Respondent's business offices, union halls, and meeting places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.."6 Copies thereof, on forms provided by said Regional Director, shall be duly signed and posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. f. Deliver signed copies of the notice marked "Appen- dix," to said Regional Director in a quantity to be designated by said Regional Director, for the purpose of posting by gasoline service station dealers throughout the Metropolitan Chicago area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties), Illinois, if desirous and willing. g. Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. B. In view of Respondent's failure to produce any witness to controvert General Counsel's overwhelming proof comprising 82 illustrative instances establishing a consistent, systematic pattern of unlawful conduct toward gasoline service station dealers and their employees in the 6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the Notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read 279 Metropolitan Chicago, Illinois, area and in order to promote the purposes and policies of the Act , as well as to effect economies of manpower, time, and money, and in the interest of administrative feasibility, jurisdiction is hereby expressly retained herein so that General Counsel (or, on its relation, Charging Party) may at any time apply to the Division of Judges of the National Labor Relations Board, by motion in the nature of a motion for summary judgment, for supplemental relief at the foot of this Order so as to extend its scope to include one or more gasoline service stations and their employees encompassed by the original charge filed in this proceeding. Each such application, upon not less than 10 days notice to Respon- dent, shall be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits, with attached exhibits as appropriate, setting forth the alleged facts; Respondent may thereupon , if so advised, within 20 days after service upon it or its attorneys of such application and accompanying papers, file with said Division of Judges answering affidavits and appropriate exhibits, which shall clearly set forth and separately state and number specific issues of fact and law raised and proposed to be tried; and General Counsel and the Charging Party may within 10 days thereafter file any reply affidavits and exhibits. All of such papers so filed shall be accompanied by proof of service of copies thereof on all other parties. If no genuine triable issue of fact or law is raised thereby, an appropriate order shall thereupon be issued; if one or more triable issues are determined to be raised, such issue or issues, specified by the Administrative Law Judge, shall be set down for trial or deposition or be otherwise disposed of by appropriate order or further order. (See Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, 154 NLRB 819, enfd. 379 F.2d 172, 178, 179, 180 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 389 U.S. 958). In the event the Administrative Law Judge finds that no bona fide issue or defense has been interposed or litigated in good faith upon or in connection with any such further trial or trials or proceeding or proceedings, reasonable costs may be imposed. Respon- dent's right to file exceptions or otherwise to seek review of any order or orders of the Administrative Law Judge in any such supplemental proceeding shall be the same as in the case of any order or decision of an Administrative Law Judge under the Board's Rules and Regulations. C. A copy of this decision and the entire record in this proceeding shall forthwith be forwarded by the Executive Secretary or other appropriate official or designee of the Board, to Honorable Elliot L. Richardson as Attorney General of the United States. "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."