Atlas Guard Service

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Atlas Guard Service and Harry Sweda and John A. Elston Allied International Union of Security Guards and Special Police and Harry Sweda and John A. Elston. Cases 4-CA-7788, 4-CA-7990, 4-CB- 2676, and 4-CB-2771 May 16, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER On December 28, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Bernard Ness issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep- tions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the 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. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Atlas Guard Service, East Orange, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the Respondent, Allied International Union of Security Guards and Special Police, Flushing, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD NESS, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 3 and 4 and July 13 and 14, 1976. The charges in Cases 4-CA-7788 and 4-CB-2676 were filed by Harry Sweda, an individual, on January 5, 1976. Amended charges were filed on February 20, 1976. The charges in Cases 4-CA-7990 and 4-CB-2771 were filed by John A. Elston, an individual, on May 6, 1976. A consolidated amended complaint was issued on May 20, 1976. The complaint alleged that Atlas Guard Service, herein referred to as Atlas, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l), (2), and (3) of the National 229 NLRB No. 106 Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. The complaint also alleged that Allied International Union of Security Guards and Special Police, herein called the Union, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(lXA) and (2) of the Act. Both Atlas and the Union have denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. THE BUSINESS OF ATLAS Atlas Guard Service, a New Jersey corporation, provides security services to various firms or facilities located in the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, Atlas, in the course and conduct of its business operations, has derived gross revenues valued in excess of $500,000, and has provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to customers outside the State of New Jersey. The complaint alleges, the Respondents admit, and I find that Atlas is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the Respondents admit, and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Sequence of Events The General Counsel contends that Atlas and the Union violated Sections 8(aX1) and (2) and 8(b)(IXA), respective- ly, by entering into a recognition agreement on June 3, 1975, whereby the Union was recognized as the bargaining representative of Atlas' employees in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The General Counsel contends that the two- state unit is inappropriate and that the Union lacked a majority of the Pennsylvania employees. The General Counsel further contends that by entering into a collective- bargaining agreement containing a union-security provi- sion on August 1, 1975, and by enforcing such provision, Atlas violated Section 8(aX)(I), (2), and (3) and the Union violated Section 8(bXlI)(A) and (2) of the Act. The General Counsel further contends that by requiring the employees to sign dual-purpose cards, i.e., application for membership and authorization to deduct union dues and assessments from their pay, Atlas violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and the Union violated Section 8(bX)(1)(A) and (2). Both Respondents argue that the two-state unit is an appropriate unit and recognition cannot be found unlawful even if none of the Pennsylvania employees authorized the Union to represent him. Both Respondents also contend that the recognition of the Union cannot be found unlawful under Section 10(b) of the Act. Their theory is that the earliest charges were filed on January 5, 1976, and thus the cutoff date would be July 5, 1975; the recognition 698 ATLAS GUARD SERVICE occurred on June 3, 1975 - more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. The General Counsel counters that Section 10(b) is inapplicable because the Pennsylvania employees were not made aware that the Union was on the scene, let alone aware that the Union had been recognized until latter August 1975 when they were first told a contract had been executed between the parties and they had to sign the dual-purpose cards or be terminated. Thus the charges were filed within 6 months after the Pennsylva- nia employees were first made aware of the existence of bargaining relationship. Atlas, through its Atlas East Division, furnishes security services to customers in portions of New York City, all of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Richard Lauer, Atlas' vice president and general manager of the Atlas East Division, is the operating head of the division and is headquartered in East Orange, New Jersey. Directly under him is Regional Operations Manager Peppin. Below Peppin in the supervisory chain of com- mand are the district managers. The district manager in New Jersey is responsible for the locations Atlas services in New Jersey. The district manager in Pennsylvania, Joseph Nichols, is responsible for the Pennsylvania locations. On June 3, 1975, Atlas and the Union entered into an agreement whereby the Union was granted recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (G.C. Exh. 2(a)). The collective-bargaining agreement, containing a union-secu- rity clause, was executed on August 1, 1975 (G.C. Exh. 2(b)). Inadvertently, the description of the unit in the contract was limited to New Jersey. By amendment executed by September 2, 1975, the Pennsylvania employ- ees were added to the description of the unit (G.C. Exh. 2(c)). During this period, Atlas employed about 150 guards at its approximately 30 New Jersey locations. Its customers in New Jersey were all commercial or industrial.' The only customer serviced in Pennsylvania is the U.S. Government and all the facilities serviced are located in Philadelphia. At the time of the recognition agreement, Atlas employed approximately 64 guards at four locations in Philadelphia. Daniel Cunningham, the Union's president, testified that in early February 1975 he presented authorization cards to Elliot Liebowitz, an official of Atlas' parent company, Servisco, and requested recognition. According to Cun- ningham, Liebowitz acknowledged the Union had over 50 percent but said he would have to contact the owner before recognition could be granted. Cunningham further testified all the terms of a contract were then agreed upon in March after negotiations with Atlas' then president, DeGilio. When asked the reason why the recognition agreement was not executed until June and the collective-bargaining agreement until August, Cunningham testified it was because the Company wanted its incoming president, Reinerts, to sign the documents. But Liebowitz was the one who signed the recognition agreement in June on behalf of Atlas. Reinerts succeeded DeGilio as president in the latter I In addition, Atlas had about 60 employees at the Newark Airport. Unlike its other employees, those at the Newark Airport are involved with baggage checking and predeparture screening. About 90 percent of them are women. The Newark Airport employees are represented by a labor organization not involved herein. Neither the other New Jersey employees nor the Pennsylvania employees had been represented by any labor organization. part of June or July and signed the contract on behalf of Atlas. Yet, elsewhere in his testimony, Cunningham stated the contract was prepared by the Union in March but DeGilio would not sign it until it was approved by Atlas' counsel who wanted certain changes made. At another point, Cunningham testified as follows: I met again several times in March and April, and in April we consummated the details of the contract, April or May . ... we had negotiated down to the monetary items and the holidays and so on. Cunningham also testified Atlas was reluctant initially to grant recognition to the Union until they agreed on a contract. No Atlas official testified concerning the recogni- tion or negotiations. Lauer testified he was not privy to any negotiations between the parties but did hear DeGilio and Cunningham talk about a contract sometime in March at an affair honoring Cunningham's predecessor. He did not recall any specifics of the discussion. Lauer testified he learned from Reinerts the first week in August that a collective-bargaining agreement had been executed. He sent a memorandum, dated August 27, to District Manager Nichols informing Nichols that Atlas had entered into a contract with the Union covering the guards in Pennsylvania. The memorandum stated in part: All Philadelphia guards must sign one of the enclosed checkoffs to authorized deductions from the pay. The signed applications are to be returned to me no later than September 19, 1975 and deductions will begin with the first pay due in October. [G.C. Exh. 4]. Accompanying the memorandum were the dual-purpose cards - applications for membership and authorizations to deduct dues, initiation fees and assessments. (G.C. Exh. 5.) These cards had been forwarded to Lauer by the Union. Also enclosed with the memorandum and the cards were copies of an undated two-page letter from Cunningham captioned "To The Employees of Atlas Guard Service." (G.C. Exh. 9.) The letter recited that the Union had achieved a "recognition agreement" authorizing the Union to represent "all their guards as a bargaining unit." The letter went on to recite specific benefits achieved. The second page contained the following typewritten sentence. "Enclosed you will find two forms which must be filled out as required and returned to our office on or before July 10, 1975."2 The typewritten part of the sentence beginning with "our office" had been lined out and substituted therefor were the printed words, "Atlas home office before September 19, 1975." This two-page letter, as altered, was received by Nichols from Lauer together with the batch of cards and Lauer's memorandum.3 Upon receipt of this material from Lauer, Nichols handed out the dual-purpose cards, together with the two-page union letter to a number of guards and told them they must sign the cards or they would be terminated. Nichols was unable to reach all the 2 The second card accompanying the letter was a union card identifica- tion form. 3 The record does not disclose who altered the sentences. Cunningham had no recollection of the letter itself being sent. Lauer was not questioned on this point. 699 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD guards and instructed each of the persons in charge of a location to so instruct the employees. The testimony of the individuals in charge of each of the Philadelphia locations disclosed they carried out his instructions and told the guards they would be terminated if they did not sign the cards.4 The Philadelphia guards thereafter executed the dual-purpose cards. Cunningham testified that when he presented authoriza- tion cards to Liebowitz in February he had with him in excess of 85 cards.5 He was unaware who had signed cards, whether they were New Jersey or Philadelphia employees or both. Although subpenaed to produce the cards, he said the cards could not be found. He testified that two union organizers had done the "soliciting." He testified they left the Union's employ after the contract had been executed and speculated they had taken the cards with them. To support Respondents' contention that the Philadel- phia employees were aware that the Union was in the picture, Cunningham testified that a letter was mailed to both the New Jersey and the Philadelphia employees notifying them of the recognition. (G.C. Exh. 8). The letter, dated June 10, addressed "To All Atlas Security Officers Employed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," recited that "after lengthy negotiations with your employer, we have agreed upon the following benefits to be included into a collective-bargaining agreement which is now in the process of being drafted." The letter also stated that there was enclosed an "Authorization form which will permit dues deductions by your employer and also make union membership possible." The letter went on to say that the contract contained a union-security clause. Cunningham testified that he obtained the addresses of the employees from the pledge cards and from payroll lists furnished to him by Liebowitz immediately upon recognition in June. General Counsel's Exhibit 9, referred to supra, was substantially similar in content to the June 10 letter except for the reference to returning the cards. Cunningham's signature is rubber stamped, the letter is undated, and he had no recollection of this letter being sent to the employees. Nichols, who was the district manager directly responsible for the Philadelphia operations, testified that the first he knew of a collective-bargaining relationship was in a telephone conversation only a few days before he received Lauer's August 27 memorandum. Lieutenants Payne and Hays testified they had never seen Cunning- ham's letter of June 10. Seven Philadelphia guards testified at the hearing. Rather than unduly prolong the hearing, the parties agreed that if certain other Philadelphia guards had testified, they would have testified in the manner stipulated to concerning their knowledge of the Union, the two union letters, or their signing of union cards. Based upon their testimony, I find that approximately 48 Philadelphia guards had either never heard of the Union until the end of August or early September, had never seen the June 10 letter, and first saw the undated letter or signed a card in September when Nichols received the material from Lauer. 4 Captain Kessler and Lieutenants Hays and Payne. I There were about 150 employees in New Jersey and about 64 in Philadelphia. 6 International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL CIO v. N.LR.B., 463 F.2d 907 (C.A.D.C., 1972); Russell-Newman Manufacturing Company, In substance, the employees were unaware of the Union being on the scene until after the contract was executed. I find it incredible of belief that, if the June 10 letter was sent to the guards in Philadelphia as well as New Jersey, 75 percent of the employees in the Philadelphia locations would not have received the letter. Accordingly, I find that the June 10 letter was not sent to the guards employed at the Philadelphia locations. Nor were these employees apprised of the Union's undated letter until after Lauer forwarded copies to Nichols on August 27, together with the dual-purpose cards. Finally, I find that at no time prior to early September were the Philadelphia employees ever told that the Union was their collective-bargaining repre- sentative. B. The 10(b) Question Section 10(b) of the Act provides in pertinent part that no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practices occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. Both Respondents contend that since the initial unfair labor practice charge was filed on January 5, 1976, more than 6 months after the Union was recognized by Atlas, i.e., June 3, 1975, neither the recognition nor the contract can be attacked. I find this argument without merit because the Philadelphia employees were not made aware of the fact that the Union was even on the scene or even attempting to organize them until after the contract was executed. The first knowledge the guards at Philadel- phia had of the Union was in the beginning of September 1975 when they were informed by Nichols or the onsite supervisors that a collective-bargaining agreement was in existence between Atlas and the Union and they had to become members of the Union. Accordingly, I find unfair labor practice charges were timely filed in January 1976.6 C. Appropriateness of the Unit On June 3, Atlas recognized the Union as the collective- bargaining representative of the guards in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. On August 1, a collective-bargaining agree- ment, containing a union-security clause, was executed. I have already found that the Philadelphia employees were unaware of the Union's interest until after the contract was executed. 7 The General Counsel contends that the bargaining unit agreed upon by the parties, i.e., the two-state unit is inappropriate and the Philadelphia guards alone represent an appropriate unit. The Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the two-state unit is appropriate. The question as to whether the New Jersey and Philadelphia locations together constitute a single appropriate bargaining unit can be answered upon a consideration of the essential factors present. There is no history of collective bargaining. As stated above, the Atlas East Division covers portions of New York City, all of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Inc., 167 NLRB 1112 (1967); Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York, Inc., 194 NLRB 1122 (1972). ' As noted above, the only guards in Pennsylvania were employed in Philadelphia locations. 700 ATLAS GUARD SERVICE West Virginia. The operating head of the division is its general manager and vice president, Lauer. Directly under him in supervising the division is the regional operations manager, Peppin. They are headquartered in East Orange, New Jersey. Below Peppin in the supervisory chain of command is a district manager in each State, responsible for the facilities serviced in his State. During the 1975 period material herein, Atlas employed about 150 guards at approximately 30 locations in New Jersey, excluding the Newark Airport employees. All Atlas' customers in New Jersey were commercial or industrial accounts. In Pennsyl- vania, Atlas' only account was the U.S. Government and the only locations serviced in the Commonwealth were in Philadelphia where about 64 guards were employed in four locations in the Philadelphia area. The nearest New Jersey location is 64 miles from Philadelphia. All employees in the Atlas Division are paid by mail from Atlas' date processing location in New Castle, Pennsylvania. The onsite supervisor at the location pre- pares timesheets for the guards at his location. This information is then transmitted to the district manager who, in turn, forwards it to Lauer in East Orange. Lauer then furnishes this information to the data processing facility. The payroll is prepared at New Castle and payroll checks are forwarded from there. The rates of pay for guards is determined by the billing cost. Atlas attempts to pay in direct wages a certain percentage of the billing cost. No fringe benefits have been paid to the guards except where the contract with the customer requires certain fringe benefits to be paid to the guards working at the customer's location. As stated above, Atlas does not have the U.S. Government as a customer in New Jersey whereas in Philadelphia the Government is the only account. In New Jersey it is Atlas alone who determines the rates of pay for its guards. Government contracts specify the rate of pay to be paid to guards at a given location with an additional compensation of 16 cents an hour to cover the cost of health and welfare benefits. The guard however is free to keep this additional compensation or use it as he sees fit. The contract entered into between Atlas and the Union establishes a minumum rate of pay for guards. Insofar as the Philadelphia employees, their rate of pay is determined by the location where they work and the rate is established by U.S. Government specifications. The rates of pay for New Jersey guards are lower than the rates fixed for the Philadelphia employees. Since the contract was executed, the Philadelphia employees no longer received the 16 cents additional compensation. These moneys are forwarded by Atlas to the Union for its welfare fund. The employees are hired by the district manager who is responsible for the overall supervision of the guards at the various locations in the State. In charge at the locations are what are called onsite supervisors, either a captain, lieutenant, or sergeant, depending on the size of the location. There is no interchange of onsite supervisors between New Jersey and Pennsylvania and very little, if any, interchange of employees from one State to the other. In Philadelphia, interchange of guards between the facilities in the city is fairly common. All the employees in Philadelphia are required to be armed and the Government requires 40 hours of training for guards employed at its facilities. In New Jersey, only about 5 of the 150 guards, employed at two locations, are required to be armed. The industrial and commercial accounts do not require a training period for guards. Each district appears to be a separate administrative entity. I find that the Philadelphia unit is presumptively an appropriate unit based upon the separate supervision, the interchange among employees between the locations, and the similarity in wages and working conditions. But this is not to say a grouping of different areas is necessarily inappropriate. The existence of an appropriate unit, that is to say the Philadelphia unit, does not compel a finding that another unit would necessarily be inappropriate. The Act does not mandate that the unit recognized by parties be the optimum unit; it must be an appropriate unit. Thus the issue to be resolved is whether the New Jersey and Philadelphia unit is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Respondents point to a centralized labor policy to support the theory that the two-state unit is appropriate. But the record before me shows that Lauer, general manager of the entire division, was not even consulted in the negotiations leading up to the contract. He first learned of the contract after the execution. In determining the appropriateness of the two-state unit, were we to consider primarily the centralized labor policy, this would support a finding that a divisionwide unit, rather than an arbitrary carving out only of a two-state unit, would be appropriate. It appears to me that the grouping of the New Jersey and Philadelphia employees into one bargaining unit was an arbitrary grouping of employees in two areas where there is an insufficient community of interest with the closest New Jersey facility where Atlas guards are employed 64 miles distant from Philadelphia. And as found heretofore, no attempt was even made to organize the Philadelphia employees nor were they apprised of the Union's interest until after the collective-bargaining agreement was execut- ed. In view of the foregoing, I find that the bargaining unit consisting of the guards in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to be inappropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. Concluding Findings As stated above, the Union did not represent a majority of the Philadelphia employees at any time material herein. The contract executed between the parties contained a union-security clause requiring employee membership. The employees were coerced into becoming members. A provision to Section 8(aX3) of the Act mandates that for a union-security clause in a contract to be effective there must be an appropriate collective-bargaining unit. Here the unit was inappropriate. As in the case of an improper accretion, the Philadelphia unit is found to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining and the employees there were deprived of a voice in selecting their bargaining representative. I find that the recognition itself, at a time when the Union did not represent a majority of the Philadelphia employees, violated Section 8(aXI) and (2) and 8(b)(IXA) of the Act. I further find that by enforcing the collective-bargaining agreement and its provisions regarding union security as to the Philadelphia employees, Atlas violated Section 8(aXI), 701 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (2), and (3) and the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. The contract entered into and effective on August 1, 1975, required that employees "shall on the 30th day following the beginning of their Employment, or the signing of this Agreement, whichever is later, be and remain Members of the Union in good standing as a condition of Employment" (art. II). The record shows that, on or about September 2, Nichols received Lauer's memorandum with the cards and the Union's two-page undated letter. The material had earlier been forwarded to Lauer from the Union. Atlas, through Nichols and its onsite supervisors, then coerced the employees into signing the cards upon threats of discharge. The cards were not only applications for membership, but also authorizations to deduct dues, initiation fees, and assessments. Even if the Respondents' defenses as to the other allegations of the complaint were valid, the conduct in requiring the employees as a condition of employment to sign the dual- purpose cards constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and 8(b)(1)(A). 8 Also unlawful of these provisions of the Act was the requirement that the Philadelphia employees execute these cards by September 19. Although the contract was executed and effective on August 1, the Philadelphia employees were not made aware of its existence until the first week in September. Under these circumstances, they were not afforded the required 30-day grace period in which to become members of the Union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Atlas described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Atlas Guard Service is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Allied International Union of Security Guards and Special Police is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By assisting and recognizing the Union as the bargaining representative for its employees in Pennsylva- nia; by maintaining, applying, and enforcing a collective- bargaining agreement containing union-security provisions as to these employees; by requiring employees to sign checkoff authorizations for union dues and fees; and by failing to provide at least a 30-day grace period for employees to apply for membership in the Union, Atlas has engaged in, and is continuing to engage in, unfair labor a Luke Construction Company, Inc., 211 NLRB 602 (1974); American Screw Co., 122 NLRB 485 (1958). 9 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, practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. 4. By obtaining recognition as the bargaining represen- tative for Atlas' employees in Pennsylvania in the absence of support from a majority of the employees located there; by maintaining, applying, and enforcing a collective- bargaining agreement containing union-security provisions as to these employees; by requiring employees to sign checkoff authorizations for union dues and fees; and by failing to provide at least a 30-day grace period for employees to apply for membership in the Union, the Union restrained and coerced, and is restraining and coercing, the employees of Atlas in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(X 1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Atlas unlawfully recognized and rendered support to the Union at its Pennsylvania facilities and unlawfully imposed and enforced a collective-bargain- ing contract containing union-security provisions, I shall recommend that Atlas withdraw and withhold all recogni- tion from the Union as the collective-bargaining represen- tative of its Pennsylvania employees and cease giving effect at those facilities to its contract, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereto, or to any superseding contract unless and until the Union is certified by the Board as such representative. However, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring Atlas to vary or abandon the wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive features established in the performance of said contract, except as described immediately below. I shall also recommend that Atlas and the Union be required, jointly and severally, to reimburse all Atlas' employees in Pennsylvania for dues and fees unlawfully exacted and to reimburse said employees for the 16-cent- per-hour supplement withheld from their wages since execution of the agreement, with interest, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: ORDER 9 A. Atlas Guard Service, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 702 ATLAS GUARD SERVICE (a) Contributing support and assistance to the Union or to any other labor organization of its employees. (b) Recognizing the Union as the bargaining representa- tive of its employees at its Pennsylvania facilities for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the said employees. (c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement with the Union, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereto, or to any superseding contract, insofar as it affects its employees at its Pennsylvania facilities provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring Atlas to vary or abandon the wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive features established in the performance of said contract, except as described in "The Remedy." (d) Threatening employees with loss of their jobs for failing or refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorization cards. (e) Requiring employees to become members of the Union or any other labor organization pursuant to any union-security provision in any agreement with the Union or any other labor organization without affording employ- ees the required 30-day grace period. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by any agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees at its Pennsylvania facilities unless and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among said employees. (b) Jointly and severally with the Union make whole its employees at its Pennsylvania facilities in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" for any losses in pay or other benefits and for any initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, with interest at 6 percent per annum. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of moneys due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Pennsylvania district office and at all facilities where its Pennsylvania employees are employed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 'O Copies of the said notices on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by Atlas' representative, shall be posted by Atlas immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 '0 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 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Atlas to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. B. Allied International Union of Security Guards and Special Police, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining agent of any of Atlas' employees at its Pennsylvania facilities unless and until said Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-con- ducted election among said employees. (b) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement with Atlas, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereto, or to any superseding contract insofar as it affects Atlas' employees at its Pennsylvania facilities. (c) Threatening employees with loss of their employment for failing or refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorization cards. (d) Requiring employees to become members of the Union pursuant to any union-security provision in any agreement without affording employees the required 30- day grace period. (e) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees of Atlas in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, 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 Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Jointly and severally with Atlas make whole Atlas' employees at is Pennsylvania facilities in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" for any losses in pay or other benefits and for any initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, with interest at 6 percent per annum. (b) Post in conspicuous places in the Union's business office, meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." i Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Union, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Atlas at its facilities where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." I See fn. IO, supra. 703 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after being signed by the Union, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Allied International Union of Security Guards and Special Police, or to any other labor organization of our employees. WE WILL NOT recognize said Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees employed at our Pennsylvania facilities unless and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board- conducted election among the said employees. WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining contract with the Union, insofar as it affects employees at our Pennsylvania facilities, but we will not vary or abandon those wages, hours, or other substantial features of our relations with our employees established in performance of said agreement, or prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they have thereunder; except that the 16-cent per hour supple- ment to the hourly rate of pay will be reinstituted and paid directly to the employees. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their jobs for failing or refusing to sign dues-checkoff authorization cards. WE WILL NOT require employees to become members of any labor organization pursuant to any union- security provision in an agreement with any union without affording employees the required 30-day grace period. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL jointly and severally with Allied Interna- tional Union of Security Guards and Special Police, make whole our employees employed at our Pennsylva- nia facilities for the 16-cent-per-hour supplement withheld from their wages since the execution of the August 1975 contract and for any other losses in pay or other benefits and for any initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to said contract, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per year. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. ATLAS GUARD SERVICE 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 agent of any of the employees of Atlas Guard Service at its Pennsylvania facilities unless and until we have demonstrated our exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among said employees. WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement of August 1975 with Atlas insofar as it applies to Atlas' employees at its Pennsylvania facili- ties. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of their employment for failing or refusing to sign dues-check- off authorization cards. WE WILL NOT require employees to become members of the Union pursuant to any union-security provision in any agreement without affording employees the required 30-day grace period. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees of Atlas in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, 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 Act. WE WILL jointly and severally with Atlas Guard Service make whole its employees at its Pennsylvania facilities for the 16-cent-per-hour supplement withheld from their wages since the execution of the August 1975 contract and for any other losses in pay or other benefits and for any initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to said contract, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per year. ALLIED INTERNATIONAL UNION OF SECURITY GUARDS AND SPECIAL POLICE 704