St. Louis Labor Health Instltute

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD St. Louis Labor Health Institute and Cynthia Stutsman Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Cynthia Stutsman. Cases 14-CA-9461 and 14- CB-3292 June 14, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND MURPHY On November 23, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Herbert Silberman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and Respondents, herein called Institute and Union, filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.' ORDER 2 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 below, and hereby orders that: A. The Respondent, St. Louis Labor Health Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: Insert the following as paragraphs 2(e) and 2(f) and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: "(e) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in paragraph A, 2(d), above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent Union's attached notice marked 'Appendix B.' "(f) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 signed copies of the attached notice marked 'Appen- dix A' for posting by Respondent Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, at its business offices and meeting hall, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Copies of said 230 NLRB No. I notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being signed by an authorized representative of the Company, shall be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for posting." B. The Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: Substitute the following paragraphs for paragraph 2(d) and reletter present 2(e) as 2(f): "(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in paragraph B, 2(c), above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent Employer's attached notice marked 'Appendix A.' "(e) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 signed copies of the attached notice marked 'Appen- dix B' for the posting by Respondent St. Louis Labor Health Institute, at its premises in St. Louis, Missouri, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by an authorized representa- tive of the Respondent Union, shall be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for posting." I We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that under the circumstances here the Union is incompetent to act as the collective- bargaining representative of the Institute's employees. However, we do not adopt that portion of the Remedy section in which the Administrative Law Judge describes the corrective action Respondents could take which would qualify the Union to represent the Institute's employees. We prefer not to rule on this issue prematurely, but, rather, shall defer the question to a time when and if a petition for certification of representative may be filed with the Board. However, nothing herein shall be construed to require the Institute to vary or abandon any wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees which the Institute has established pursuant to any contract, agreement, or understanding, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights acquired by them thereunder. 2 The Board customarily remedies 8(aX3) violations with a broad order using the injunctive language "in any other manner." However, we consider a narrow order appropriate here, since unusual or technical 8(bXI)(1A) and 8(aX3) violations are involved. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERBERT SILBERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: A charge having been filed in Case 14-CA-9461 on July 7, 1976, against St. Louis Labor Health Institute,' herein called the Institute, and a charge having been filed on the same day against Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, an order consolidating the separate cases and a complaint therein were issued on August 6, 1976. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, The name of Respondent Employer appears in the caption in accordance with the amendment of the complaint granted at the hearing. 180 ST. LOUIS LABOR HEALTH INSTITUTE alleges that the Institute has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(aXl), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. A hearing in these proceedings was held on September 13, 1976, in St. Louis, Missouri. Pursuant to permission granted the parties at the hearing, briefs were filed with the Administrative Law Judge by counsel for General Counsel and for Respondents. Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE INSTITUTE The Institute, a not-for-profit Missouri corporation, provides direct medical services to individuals, largely to members of the Union under group medical insurance plans provided in collective-bargaining agreements be- tween the Union and various business organizations. During the calendar year 1975 the Institute's gross revenue was in excess of $500,000 and its purchases of supplies and equipment, which were shipped to its facility in St. Louis, Missouri, through channels of interstate commerce from locations outside the State of Missouri, were in excess of $50,000. Respondents admit, and I find, that the Institute is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7).2 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The Institute recognizes the Union as the representative of its business office employees and its dental assistants. These two employee units have been covered by separate, but similar, collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which were for a term of 3 years from June 1, 1973, to May 31, 1976, and have been extended pending the negotiation of succeeding agreements. The contracts as written and extended contain union-security and checkoff clauses. The single issue in this case is whether the relationship between the Union and the Institute is such as to disqualify the Union from acting as the statutory representative of the Institute's employees. The complaint alleges that the Institute and the Union are "affiliated business enterprises and alter egos of each other with common officers, ownership, directors and operators which officers and directors formulate and administer a common labor policy for Respondent Em- ployer and Union." At the hearing General Counsel was requested in his brief to define the term alter ego and to 2 The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Union also is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. explain its relationship to the issues in this case. For a definition, General Counsel quotes from Parklate Hosiery Co., Inc. and Mervyn Roberts d/b/a Parklane Hosiery, 203 NLRB 597, 614 (1973): Some courts have found the requisite degree of control present, however, upon the showing that the financial operations, policy, and general business practice of the claimed subordinate instrumentality are so completely dominated that, with respect to the particular transaction under attack, the business entity in question has no separate mind, will, or existence of its own. He argues that in the present case the Institute "is solely dependent on revenue derived ultimately from labor contracts negotiated by [the Union]. Its officers are all top officials of [the Union]" and the Union's "influence and potential for control of [the Institute] is so great that [the Institute] may be treated as the alter ego of [the Union]. Of course, the finding of an 8(aX2) violation does not require the finding of alter ego status. An 8(a)2) violation can be sustained on significantly less of an interrelationship than required for a showing of an alter ego." I disagree that the facts adverted to by General Counsel establish that the two organizations are alter egos. Respondents argue that the "gravamen of General Counsel's Complaint revolves around the 'alter ego' theory . . . and they] would be severely prejudiced in this case by any finding of violations on any basis other than the 'alter ego' theory ... because they had absolutely no notice that General Counsel was advancing any other theory or relying on any other facts other than those alleged .... "I find no merit to this argument. The assertion of the alter ego relationship appears in paragraph 4 of the complaint and is a conclusionary statement. The facts upon which the alleged unfair labor practices are based are set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the complaint and the use of the term "alter ego" in paragraph 7 is descriptive only. Furthermore, at the hearing General Counsel clearly stated that establishing an alter ego relationship was not essential to the theory of his case and none of the cases cited by General Counsel in support of his position rely on an alter ego theory. Contrary to Respondents, I find that they are not prejudiced by a decision which does not rely on the existence of an alter ego relationship in determining that the alleged unfair labor practices have been proved. The significant issue in this case, as stated by General Counsel in his brief, is whether the Union has "sufficient involvement in the management and control of [the Institute] to prevent [the Union] from representing or attempting to represent employees of the [Institute)." Respondents' defense is that regardless of the fact that the same individuals occupy principal offices in both organiza- tions, the union officials as officers of the Institute "play very little part in the day to day operations of [the Institute]," and have not used their positions to the prejudice of the bargaining unit employees and, therefore, there is no basis for disqualifying the Union as the representative of employees of the Institute. 181 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The Evidence Only two witnesses testified at the hearing, Paul Akers and Otto Sanders, a union business agent. Akers confirmed the allegations of the complaint regarding the individuals who hold offices in both organizations. Ronald Gamache is president of the Insti- tute and secretary-treasurer and chief executive officer of the Union; Paul Akers is secretary-treasurer of the Institute and president of the Union; and Levi Sanford is vice president of the Institute and a business agent of the Union. The general supervision of all the affairs of the Institute is vested in a seven-member board of trustees. Three of the trustees are Ronald Gamache, Paul Akers, and Levi Sanford. The other four are: Leo Grams, a retired member of the Union; Elmer Goebel, a former employer of members of the Union who is now retired; and Joe Promaroli and Dallas Crawford, rank-and-file union members. In addition, there are three alternate members of the board of trustees who are: Thomas Gaukel, a former employer of members of the Union; Sam Williams, a retired union member; and Ralph Evans, a labor relations consultant for an employer. Norman Armbruster is the attorney for both the Institute and the Union. The officers and trustees of the Institute spend little time in the management of its affairs. Dr. Edward J. Berger, medical director, Peter C. Sharamitaro, who holds the title of assistant to president, and Milton J. Robbers, an accountant, are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Institute. According to Akers the Institute, which is a not-for- profit corporation, is the "medical arm" which services the medical and hospitalization benefits provided for members of the Union pursuant to the terms of collective-bargaining agreements.3 Very few other persons receive services from the Institute. The Institute's revenue is derived from payments made by contracting employers and from patient charges. The Union makes no payments to the Institute except for premium payments on behalf of its employees who are covered by appropriate medical plans. The Institute and the Union occupy space in the same building complex. The business office employees and the dental assistants of the Institute have been covered by collective-bargaining agreements with the Union which contain union-security and checkoff clauses. The most recent contracts were for the term from June 1, 1973, to May 31, 1976, and have been extended by oral agreement until the negotiation of succeeding contracts shall be concluded. Otto Sanders, business agent of the Union, is the individual who acts for the employees of the Institute 3 Not all agreements negotiated by the Union provide for the utilization of the services of the Institute. 4 Akers testified that in the 2 years he has been an officer of the Institute there have been no grievances that have gone beyond the first step of the grievance procedure. Thus, he was unable to testify whether the Institute's representative on the adjustment board (a later step in the grievance procedure) at any time has been a union official. s See Medical Foundation of Bellaire, 193 NLRB 62 (1971), and cases there cited, particularly in fn. 19. 6 See Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, Inc., 118 NLRB 174, 187 (1957). 7 Centerville Clinics, Incorporated 181 NLRB 135 (1970); H. P. Hood & covered by the collective-bargaining agreements. 4 During the current negotiations Sanders represented the Union, while Paul Akers represented the Institute. C. Conclusions The issue in this case is whether the relationship between the Union and the Institute is such as to disqualify the Union from acting as the statutory collective-bargaining representative of employees of the Institute. What consti- tutes such disqualification has been considered by the Board in a variety of situations.5 Without attempting to iterate an all-encompassing principle, it is sufficient for the purposes of the instant decision to note that the Board will find that a union is not qualified to act as a collective- bargaining representative if it is unable to approach negotiations with the single-minded purpose of protecting and advocating the interests of the employees who have selected it as their bargaining representative or if, in effect, the same people sit on both sides of the bargaining table. The evidence is that Paul Akers, who is president of the Union, has been the principal negotiator for the Institute in bargaining with the Union with respect to a contract to replace the agreement that expired on May 31, 1976. For this reason I find that the allegations of the complaint have been sustained.6 In support of his position General Counsel cites cases which state that a union is disqualified to represent employees of an employer if there exists a potential for a conflict of interest.7 Respondents, on the other hand, cite more recent cases which they contend stand for the proposition that the Board no longer considers the governing criterion to be the "potential" possibility that the representation of employees will be tainted by an alleged conflict in interest, but that a union will be disqualified only where in fact the representation of employees has been infected by a conflict of interest.8 The cases cited by Respondents suggest that the Board's attitude may be changing. However, it is unnecessary for me to determine that question. Where, as in this case, an important union official, such as Paul Akers, represents an employer in collective-bargaining negotiations with his union a disqua- lifying conflict of interests exists.9 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Institute and of the Union, set forth in section 11I, above, occurring in connection with the Institute's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to Sons, Inc., 182 NLRB 194, 195 (1970); United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund, 192 NLRB 1022 (1971); Medical Foundation of Bellaire, supra 8 Anchorage Community Hospital, Inc., 225 NLRB 575 (1976); Gerace Construction, Inc. and Helger Construction Company, Inc., 193 NLRB 645 (1971). 9 Loyalty to the interests of the Institute and the Union necessarily come into conflict when, as president of the Union, Akers represents the Institute in collective-bargaining negotiations. Furthermore, the union negotiator, Otto Sanders, when negotiating with the president of the Union, is subject to subtle pressures which would tend to interfere with his obligation to promote and protect the interests of the employees he is representing. 182 ST. LOUIS LABOR HEALTH INSTITUTE lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Institute and the Union have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom- mend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In regard to framing a remedy in this case an issue exists as to whether the relationship between the Institute and the Union is such as to render the Union incompetent to represent the Institute's employees at any time.10 The evidence shows that less than a majority of the trustees of the Institute are officials of the Union and that, although the principal officers of the Institute are officials of the Union, the day-to-day operations of the Institute are conducted by administrators who have no affiliation with the Union. The violations of the Act in this proceeding arise from the fact that the Institute delegated responsibili- ty to Paul Akers, the union president, to represent it in collective-bargaining negotiations. This vice can be cor- rected by the Institute adopting a policy whereunder responsibility for negotiations will be delegated to persons who are not officials of the Union. Also, it may be possible for the Institute to take appropriate action to insure that if any union officials serve as officers of the Institute they shall not be involved in the negotiation or ratification of any collective-bargaining agreement between the Institute and the Union or in any other labor relations matter. Accordingly, I shall recommend a remedial order herein similar to the order of the Board in United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund supra. When and if a petition for certification of representative shall be filed with the Board, the Board can determine whether the objection- able conduct has been remedied and whether the Union is qualified to act as the representative of the Institute's employees. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is not qualified to act as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees of the Institute. 2. By being parties to and by maintaining in effect and enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement which among other things requires the employees covered thereby as a condition of employment to become and to remain members of the Union, although the Union is not qualified to act as their collective-bargaining representative, the Institute has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act and the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(X)(A) of the Act. LO Compare the remedy in United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund supra, with the remedies in Centerville Clinics, Incorporateda supra, and Medical Foundarion of Bellaire, supra. n1 The complaint also alleges that the execution of the 1973 agreement was unlawful. As the agreement was executed more than 6 months before the filing of the charges in these proceedings, I shall make no finding that the execution of the agreement was unlawful. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in these proceedings, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 12 A. The Respondent, St. Louis Labor Health Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of any of its employees unless and until the National Labor Relations Board shall certify the Union as such representative. (b) Maintaining or giving any force or effect to any collective-bargaining agreement, oral or written, with the Union, provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall require the Institute to rescind, vary, or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of the relation- ship between the Institute and its employees which may have been established in the performance of any contract between the Institute and the Union, or to prejudice the assertion by its employees of any rights they may have thereunder. (c) Encouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization, by conditioning the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any of its employees upon membership in, or dues payment to, any such labor organization, except as authorized by Section 8(aX3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, I find, will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of any of its employees unless and until said Union has been duly certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations Board. (b) Jointly and severally with the Union reimburse its employees, former and present, for all dues, assessments, and fees exacted from them by or on behalf of the Union since January 8, 1976, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, 12 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 recommended Order hereli 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. 183 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its premises in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."' 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by the Institute immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Institute to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Institute has taken to comply herewith. B. The Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Acting as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of any of the Institute's employees unless and until certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations Board. (b) Attempting to enforce or to apply any collective- bargaining agreement, oral or written, with the Institute and from entering into, maintaining, or enforcing any collective-bargaining agreement with the Institute unless and until the Union has been certified as the representative of the employees as provided by Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing the Institute's employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, I find, will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Jointly and severally with the Institute reimburse the Institute's former and present employees for all dues, assessments, and fees exacted from them by or on behalf of the Union since January 8, 1976, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at the Union's business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."' 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 14 signed copies of said notice for posting by the Institute at all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith. 13 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 4 See fn. 13, surpa. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT recognize Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of any of our employees unless and until said Union has been certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT apply to any of our employees any agreement, oral or written, with said Union. WE WILL NOT withhold or deduct from the wages of any of our employees any moneys pursuant to the checkoff provisions of any agreement, oral or written, that we may have had with said Union. WE WILL NOT contribute support to the Union in any other manner. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza- tion, by conditioning the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of any of our employees upon membership in, or dues payment to, any such labor organization except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL jointly and severally with Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, reimburse our former and 184 ST. LOUIS LABOR HEALTH INSTITUTE present employees for any dues assessments and fees paid to the Union by deductions from their wages or otherwise on and after January 8, 1976, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. ST. Louis LABOR HEALTH INSTITUTE APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining representative of any employees of St. Louis Labor Health Institute unless and until we are certified as such representative by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT attempt to enforce or to apply to employees of St. Louis Labor Health Institute any agreement, oral or written, with the Institute. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of St. Louis Labor Health Institute in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL jointly and severally with St. Louis Labor Health Institute reimburse the Institute's former and present employees for all dues, assessments, and fees paid to us on and after January 8, 1976, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No. 688, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA 185