Big E Leasing And Service Corp. And Rje Leasing

BIG E LEASING CORP 1329 Big E Leasing and Service Corp . and RJE Leasing, Pittsburgh Division, Corp. and General Ware- housemen and Employees Local 636 a/w Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 249 . a/w International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and General Warehousemen and Employees Local 636 a/w International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America . Cases 6-CA- 17261-4: and 6-CB-6397 31 July 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 29 April 1985 Administrative Law' Judge Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision. Respondent Teamsters Local 249 filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. - The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Big E Leas- ing and Service Corp., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the Respondent, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 249 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order.. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. These cases were tried at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11- 12 February 1985. On 1-1 April 19841 Teamsters Local 636 filed the charge (amended 15 June) against Big E Leasing and Service Corp. (the Company), the charge against Teamsters Local 249, and also a charge against RJE Leasing, Pittsburgh Division, Corp. (RJE) in a case ' All dates are m•1984 unless otherwise indicated that was settled before trial. The complaints and consoli- dated order were issued 15 June The Company was performing truck driving and de- livery work for Gimbels at two warehouses under a truckdriver agreement with Teamsters Local 249. After negotiating with Local 249 a cutrate wage for a new classification of warehousemen, the Company contracted to perform warehouse work at the two warehouses. It replaced all except six of the Gimbel warehousemen rep- resented by Local 636, hired new employees solely through the Local 249 hiring hall, and applied the Local 249 truckdriver agreement (covering 22 drivers and help- ers) to the larger warehouse bargaining unit (containing 41 skilled and unskilled employees). The primary issues are (a) whether the Respondent Company rendered unlawful assistance to Local 249 and discriminated against Local 636 members and others not referred by Local 249 and (b) whether the Respondent Local 249 coerced employees and caused the Company to discriminate in the hiring of employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act On the entire record, including 'my observation of the demeanor ' of the witnesses, and ' after considering the General Counsel's and Local 249's briefs and the Compa- ny's contentions at the trial, I make. the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The. Company (which admittedly is a single employer with RJE) provides nonretail delivery, warehouse, and messenger services at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it annually provides services valued over $50,000 to Gimbel Brothers, Inc., which operates retail stores in various States. The Company and Local 249 admit that the . Company is an employer engaged in -commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that Locals 249 and 636 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act _ II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Negotiation of Cutrate Warehousemen Wage In December 1983 the Company contracted to per- form Gimbel's truckdriving and delivery work at Gim- bel's 21st and 24th Streets warehouses in Pittsburgh after reaching an agreement with Teamsters Local 249, which had represented Gimbel's regular drivers, helpers, and loaders The Company adopted Local 249's 1982-1985 collective-bargaining agreement with Gimbels (G.C. Exh. 3) and hired all 22 or 23 of the full-time and regular part-time drivers, helpers, and loaders in the truckdriver bargaining unit at these two warehouses. (Tr. 37, 51, G C. Exh. 3.) In February, during negotiations of a new truckdriver agreement, the Company proposed a "package" deal, of- fering to give a $1 45 wage increase over a 3-year period if Local 249 would agree to a warehousemen classifica- tion, to be paid the "very ' low wage rate" of $4.75 an hour (Tr. 64, 72, 74). This $4.75 rate (to be increased 275 NLRB No. 182 1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD $1.05 to $5 80 by February 1987) was far below other rates of $9.39 (to $10.84) for regular helpers, $9 74 (to $11.19) for night loaders, and, $8.10 (to $9.55) for new platform helpers/loaders hired after 14 February 1982 (G.C Exh. 4, p. 33). The Company did not at that time have any warehou- semen who would be paid that substandard rate (Tr 70). Although the Company refused to inform Local 249 where the warehouse work would be, claiming this was privileged information, Local 249 suspected it would be additional work from Gimbels (Tr. 73-74), whose ware- housemen had been represented by Teamsters Local 636 for about 40 years (Tr. 81). Gimbels and Local 636 had been unable to reach an agreement to replace the one that expired 15 February 1983. Under that expired 1980- 1983 agreement, the warehouseman rate (group 3) had been $7 20 an hour since 15 February 1982 (G C. Exh. 8, pp. 29, 31) The warehouse employees were working under that expired agreement during Gimbel's continuing negotiations with Local 636 (Tr. 81). When proposing the package deal (which also includ- ed a $3.40 messenger rate and other new classifications not involved in this proceeding), the' Company informed Local 249-that this was its final offer. It stated that the proposed warehouse rate was part of the package and that if the Local 249 membership did ,not accept it, the Company "would not bid, on the work and that would be the end of that." (Tr. 64.)' The proposal included a "side letter-agreement" that revealed the Company's intention of replacing experience employees (members 'of Local 636) 'performing ware- house work. The side letter provided'that "in hiring the initial complement" of employees," the "Company would first assign the "extras" on its payroll, and then if any of the "former employees" terminated Gimbel employees) are, referred -by Local 249, they "will be' considered' for employment"-at the $4.75 rate, except'(six) former em- ployees "in a technically skilled specialty,". who would be paid at the prevailing rate. (G.C. Exh. 4.) There were then 22 employees in the -truckdriver bar- gaining unit, all working full.time as drivers and helpers (G.C. Exh. 4, p. 46). The proposed 1984-1988 agreement would define the unit-as all "full-time and regular part- time drivers, helpers, and,warehousemen" and, if applied to about 41 employees in the warehouse unit, would expand the unit from 22 to about 63. "It continued the hiring hall provisions (stating in art. I, sec. 2 that "the Union -will ,have first opportunity to refer qualified per- sonnel". to fill needs for, additional personnel to perform driving, helping, or warehousing functions', through, the "hiring hall procedure or'otherwise") and `the union-se- curity provision's (stating in art II, sec._ -1 that new em- ployees shall become meinbers'on`the 31st day of 'em- ployment). Local 249 accepted the proposal and on 29 February signed the side letter 'and the 1984-1988'agreement.' B. Extension of Local 249 Agreement to 'Warehouse Unit On 29 February; after the Company and Teamsters Local 249 signed the'truckdriver agreement containing the new classification and low wage rate for warehouse- men, Gimbels notified Teamsters Local 636 that it had decided to contract out Local 636's warehouse work (Tr 82). On 12 March Gimbels notified the Company,(effec- tive on 24 hours' notice) that it would be assigning the Company the warehousemen functions at the 21st Street furniture warehouse and the first floor of the 24th Street warehouse (G.C. Exh 5) - The Company immediately extended the Local 249 truckdriver and warehouse agreement to the warehouse unit at the two warehouses, requesting Local 249 under the hiring hall provisions of that agreement to begin re- ferring applicants to the company offices in the Eastland Shopping Center (Tr. 68). Local 249 referred six appli- cants 13 March (G.C. Exh. 2, LL. 22, 27, 29, 37-39), one on 14 March (L. 26), and one on 16 March (L. 25). On March 16 Gimbels terminated all the Local 636 members. The next day, Saturday, 'the Company began offering full-time employment to their replacements As it and Local 249 had agreed-in their February 29 side letter, the Company first offered the warehouse work to 23 "extras." These extra employees (who were not mem- bers of the Local 249 bargaining unit of "full-time and regular part-time" employees) had worked on "`a casual or extra" basis, in most cases only 1 or 2 days, as loader helpers, messengers, or messenger drivers for-the Com- pany or as receivers for RJE (Tr. 28, G.C. Exh. 2, LL. 1-21, 23-24) That same Saturday the Company offered warehouse employment to the eight Local 249 referrals whom it had interviewed. All 31 of these extras and new employees began working full time the following week. On Monday 19 March the Company completed inter- viewing Local 249 referrals for its initial complement of warehouse employees It hired 10 of them, including the six skilled furniture • refinishers and repairmen (former Gimbel employees, members of Local 636) mentioned in the 29 February side letter (Tr. 29, 45, G.C Exh. 2, LL. 28, 30-36, 40-41). ' Between 12 and 19 March, 29 additional applications were filed by persons who were not referred by Local 249. Although 16 of these applications showed experi- ence iii furniture and general warehouse work, none of the 29 applicants was hired for the warehouse work. (Tr. 32.) On the other hand, all the applicants referred by Local 249 during this period were hired, except that one applicant referred on March 19 was rejected because of physical disability'(Tr. 31). On "20' and 21 March; after -most of the' Local 636 members had been replaced, a large number of them went to the company office, and filed applications. Gen- eral Manager Richard Funk met with some of them 21 March, told them the Company's hiring was done through Local 249 referrals, and informed them that under the hiring hall arrangement they had to go to the union hall about' 3 a.m., sign up on the extra list, then wait for jobs-at Gimbels and elsewhere-to be an- nounced, and they "might be assigned to any number, of different kinds of jobs" (Tr. "46-47): He told them that- he would send copies of their applications to that local (Tr. 48). - The Company admittedly recognized Local 249 and applied the Local 249-agreement "for all purposes" to BIG E LEASING CORP the 41 employees-in the warehouse unit (consisting of 23 'former "extras," 12 new employees referred by Local 249, and the 6 skilled members of Local 636) (Tr 46). Local 249 did,not show the Company-any union authori- zation cards or other proof that it represented any of these warehouse employees (Tr. 50). On 3 May most of the warehouse employees signed Local 249 membership application cards in the presence of General Manager Funk and other company officials (Tr 79, G.C. Exh. 7) Acting to enforce the union secu- rity provisions in its agreement, Local 249 made assess- ments for initiation fees and the May dues against a total of 26 warehouse employees who had signed the cards, including 6 computer operators (Tr. 83, G.C. Exh. 7). It collected seven of the assessments before suspending the collection. C. Concluding Findings Teamsters Local 636 had represented Gimbel's ware- house employees about 40 years. On 29 February the Company and Teamsters Local 249 signed a prehire agreement for warehousemen, extending their agreement covering 22 drivers and helpers at two Gimbel ware- houses to a new classification of warehousemen. On 12 March, when Gimbels notified the Company (effective on 24 hours' notice) that it was contracting out ware- house work at the two warehouses to the Company, the Company immediately recognized Local 249 as the rep- resentative of the warehouse unit by applying the hiring hall procedure in the prehire agreement and requesting referrals from Local 249. On 17 March, the day after Gimbels terminated all the Local 636 members working as warehousemen, the Company began replacing all these experienced employees except six skilled furniture refinishers and repairmen. As agreed with Local 249 in the prehire agreement, the Company first assigned its nonunit "extras." It then hired new employees (as well as the six terminated skilled employees) exclusively through the Local 249 hiring hall, refusing to hire any of the non- referred applicants (including terminated Local 636 members) Although Local 249 failed to show the Com- pany any union authorization cards or other proof that it represented any of these 41 employees in the warehouse unit (consisting of 23 former "extras," 12 new employees referred by Local 249, and the 6 skilled Local 636 mem- bers), the Company admittedly applied the Local 249 agreement to this warehouse unit "for all purposes." It is clear that the Company's recognition of Loca1249 under the prehire agreement constituted an unlawful.pre- mature recognition unless the warehouse bargaining unit was a proper, accretion to the existing truckdriver bar- gaining unit . Contrary to the contentions of the Compa- ny and Local 249, I agree with the General Counsel that there was not a lawful accretion. As held in Safeway Stores, 256 NLRB- 918 (1981), for the Board to find a valid accretion, the additional employees must not only share an overwhelming community of interest with the preexisting unit but must "have little or no separate group identity and thus cannot be considered to be a sep- arate appropriate unit." Moreover, as held in a case cited by Local 249, Universal Security Instruments v. NLRB, 649 F.2d 247, 255 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 454 U.S. 1331 965 (1981), "The accretion doctrine is applied more strictly, when the new group of employees is larger than the original unit." Here the warehouse employees had been represented by Teamsters Local 636 many years in a bargaining unit separate from the truckdriver bargaining unit. They could obviously be a separate appropriate unit. And there were 41 employees in the warehouse bargaining unit, nearly twice the number of 22 employees in the truckdriver unit. No proof of majority was offered. , As alleged in the complaint, I find that the Company granted recognition to Local 249 as the exclusive repre- sentative of the warehouse bargaining unit under the ille- gal prehire agreement ; that it applied the agreement, containing union-security and hiring hall provisions, when Local 249 did not represent an uncoerced majori- ty; and that it hired as warehousemen only applicants re- ferred by Local 249, encouraging employees to join and support the Local in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. I also find that the Company applied the hiring hall provisions of the illegal prehire agreement and discriminated in hiring against Local 636 members and others not referred by Local 249 by hiring only ap- plicants referred by Local 249, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. As further alleged in the complaint, I find that Local 249 obtained recognition from the Company as the ex- clusive representative of the warehouse bargaining unit under the illegal' prehire -agreement when it did not rep- resent an uncoerced majority, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I also find that Local 249, at the Company's request, referred individuals under the hiring hall provisions of,the illegal prehire agreement, causing the Company to refuse to employ employees without Local 249 referrals, in violation of. Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By recognizing Teamsters Local 249 as the exclu- sive representative of the warehouse unit and applying its illegal prehire agreement with Local 249 to the ware- house unit when the Local did not represent an un- coerced majority, and by hiring as warehousemen only applicants referred by Local 249, the Company unlawful- ly assisted Local 249, engaging 'in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the -meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2 By applying the hiring hall provisions of the illegal prehire agreement and'by discriminating in hiring against Teamsters Local 636 members and others not referred by Local 249, the. Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 3. By obtaining premature recognition from the Com- pany under the illegal prehire agreement, Local 249 vio- lated Section'8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 4. By referring individuals under the hiring hall provi- sions of the illegal prehire agreement at the Company's request, causing the Company to refuse to employ em- ployees without Local 249 referrals, Local 249 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Company and Re- spondent Teamsters Local 249 have engaged in certain' unfair labor piactices, I find it necessary to order them to cease and desist and to take certain' affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Although both Respondents deny the commission of =any unfair labor practices,' both agreed at the trial that the terms of paragraph A,1 and 2(a)-(c) of the following Order against the Respondent- Company would effectu- ate the purposes of the Act if the alleged violations were found (Tr. 85, 88). Interest on the backpay and refunds shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). - On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I-issue the following recommend- ed2 - - ' ORDER • A. The Respondent. Company, Big E Leasing and Service Cor`p., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors,'and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Assisting General Teamsters, Chauffeurs' and Help- ers Local 249 a/w International Brotherhood 'of-Team- sters, Chauffeurs; Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, by recognizing' it'as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the furniture warehouse and material han- dling employees at Gimbel's 2-1st Street and 24th Street warehouse (the Warehouse Unit) when-it does-not repre-' sent an uncoei'ced majority. - ` (b) Applying its-collective-bargaining agreement with Local 249 to the' Warehouse Unit' when the Local does not represent an uncoerced ' majority; except -that' the wages and 'other conditions ;of employment `established under the agreement need not be abandoned." • ' (c) Encouraging membership in Local •249 by refusing to hire Warehouse Unit `employees unless they are re- ferred by that' Local when it' is not the lawfully recog- nized representative of that, Unit' (d) Recognizing or bargaining with Local 249 as the representative of theWarehouse Unit employees unless it becomes the certified bargaining- representative. , - - ' (e) In any like or related manner' interfering with, re- straining, 'or " coercing; employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by-Section'7 of the'Act. 2. Take the following, affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. ,t , . . (a) Offer, if not previously offered, Maurice A Blake, Matthew F. Foley,, and. Robert Lyda "full-time Ware- house Unit jobs,,,and William ,Harshbargar,i Earl Ross, Edward Fuhrer, Mark, Bracarelli, and Frank Skorkoski part-time Warehouse Unit ,jobs, discharging or. ;refusing to recall from layoffif necessary, other employees to make room for them ; 2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board` and all objections to them -shall be deemed' waived for 'all pur- poses - _ ` (b) Offer, -m the following order, all full-time and part- time Warehouse Unit jobs that become-available before August 15, 1986, to a pool of 33 qualified persons who applied before March 28, 1984, until each of them has been hired for, or has rejected; a full-time job 1. Lesley Cardell 17 Raymond Miller 2. John Zaya 18 Paul Matvia -- 3. Leonard Fliegel 19 William Petrie 4. Jack Feeney - 20, Matthew Moran 5. Threatha Allen • •21 Joseph Ross 6. Craig Lawson - • 22. Michael Tedeschi 7. Alfred Daugininkas 23 Mark Bracarelli 8. Bill Forbes 24. Thomas Huck 9, Ray Tomko • 25. Kenneth Maddox 10. Edward Fuhrer 26. Raymond McMillen Jr. 11. James Nocine 27. Joe Cottrell 12. Harry Miller 28. Mike Chojnacki 13. Chris Moronelli 29. Charles Malia 14. Earl Ross - 30. Keith Mahowski 15. Bill Harshbarger 31. James Mears 16: Rich Yanik 32. Frank Skorkoski 33 Eugene Ennis (c) Jointly and severally with Local 249 compensate the following - applicants who were discriminatorily denied consideration for employment-by giving each of them an equal 'share of the total backpay amount of $15,845.10, plus interest: - Threatha Allen - Robert J. Lyda - Maurice A Blake Kenneth Maddox ' Mark Cracarelli - Charles A Malia' Lesley F. Barden ' Paul Matvia Mike Chojriacki• James' E. Mears Joe Cottrill- ' Harry.J. Miller ' Alfred Daugininkas Chris Moronelli ' Eugene L. Ennis James W. Nocine Leonard H. Fliegel William W. Petrie Matthew F Foley,' Earl Ross Bill Forbes - Joseph M- Ross ' Edward M. Fuhrer Frank Skorkoski Bill Harshbarger • - Ray Tomko • Craig Lawson,, _• , Rich Yakik. John•Zaya -(d) Post at its operation's` in the Gimbel's 21st and 24th Street warehouses in Pittsburgh; Pennsylvania,, copies of the attached notice marked ' 'Appendix' A."3 ' Copies of the notice, on forms provided; by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being-signed',by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days-in conspicuous places -including all places where notices'-to employees are customarily posted Rea- If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board •' - BIG E LEASING` CORP sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. . (e) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked. "Ap- pendix A" to each individual named , in this Order. Copies of the notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Re- spondent Company's authorized representative, shall be mailed by the Respondent Company immediately upon receipt. (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent Company has taken to comply., B. The Respondent Union, General Teamsters , Chauf- feurs and Helpers Local 249 a/w International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Acting as the representative of the furniture ware- house and material handling employees at Gimbel's 21st Street and 24th Street warehouses (the Warehouse Unit) until certified by the Board as their exclusive collective- bargaining representative. - (b) Giving effect to any terms of the 29 February 1984 collective-bargaining agreement , or any amendment or renewal, between it and the Respondent Company as ap- plied to the Warehouse Unit. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Compa- ny compensate the following applicants who were discri- minatorily denied consideration for employment by giving each of them an equal share of the total backpay amount of $15,845. 10, plus interest: Threatha Allen Robert J. Lyda Maurice A Blake Kenneth Maddox - Mark Bracarelli Charles A. Malia Lesley F. Cardell Paul Matvia Mike Chojnacki James E. Mears Joe Cottrill Harry J. Miller Alfred Daugininkas Chris Moronelli Eugene L. Ennis James W. Nocine Leonard H. Fliegel William W. Petrie Matthew F Foley Earl Ross Bill Forbes Joseph M. Ross Edward M. Fuhrer Frank Skorkoski Bill Harshbarger Ray Tomko Craig Lawson Rich Yanik - John Zaya ' (b) Refund , with interest, any money collected as initi- 1 - ation fees or dues from employees in the Warehouse' Unit. (c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."4 Copies of 4 See fn 3, above 1333 the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region - 6, after being signed by • •th6 Respondent Union's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent Union immediately upon receipt and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in- cluding all places where notices to members are, custom- arily posted . Reasonable steps 'shall be taken' by , the Re- spondent Union to ensure ' that the notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any, other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing . within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. - IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint - is dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe- cifically found. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local' 249 as the rep- resentative of our warehouse unit employees at Gimbel's 21st and 24th Street warehouse unless that Local is certi- fied by the Board as their exclusive collective -bargaining representative WE WILL NOT apply our Local 249 agreement to these warehouse employees when that Local does not repre- sent an uncoerced majority. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Local 249 by refusing to hire warehouse unit employees unless - re- ferred by that Local when it is not the lawful representa- tive. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer, if not previously offered, full-time and part-time warehouse unit jobs that become available before 15 August 1986 to this pool of 33 qualified per- sons who applied before 28 March 1984 , unless each of them has been hired for, or has rejected , a full-time job: 1. Lesley Ca'rdell 2. John Zaya 3. Leonard Fliegel 4 Jack Feeney 5. Threatha Allen 6. Craig Lawson 7. Alfred Daugininkas 8. Bill Forbes 9. Ray Tomko 10. Edward Fuhrer 11. James Nocine 12. Harry Miller 13. Chris Moronelli 14 Earl Ross 17. Raymond Miller 18. Paul Matvia 19. William Petrie .20. Matthew Moran 21. Joseph Ross 22. Michael•Tedeschi 23. Mark Bracarelli 24. Thomas Huck 25. Kenneth Maddox 26. Raymond McMillen Jr. 27. Joe Cottrill 28. Mike Chojnacki 29. Charles Malia 30. Keith Mahowski 1334 _ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,15: Bill Harshbarger 31. James Mears Joe Cottrill Harry J. Miller 16. Rich Yanik 32. Frank Skorkoski Alfred Daugininkas Chris Moronelli 33. Eugene, Ennis '- Eugene L Ennis James W. Nocine Leonard H. Fliegel William W. Petrie 'Matthew ,F Foley Earl Ross WE WILL jointly and severally with Local 249 pay . each of the following applicants an equal share in the Bill Forbes Joseph M Ross total backpay of $15,845 . 10, plus interest: -Edward M. Fuhrer Frank Skorkoski Bill H h ars barger Ray Tomko Threatha Allen - Robert J. Lyda Craig Lawson Rich Yanik Maurice A. Blake Kenneth Maddox John Zaya Mark Cracarelli • ' Charles A. Malia Lesley F. Bardell Paul Matvia Mike Chojnacki James E. Mears' BIG E LEASING AND SERVICE CORP.