Mine Workers Local 9639 (Beth-Elkhorn)

MINE WORKERS LOCAL 9639 (BETH-ELKHORN) 323 Local Union No. 9639, United Mine Workers of America and Local Union No. 5741, United Mine Workers of America (Beth-Elkhorn Cor- poration) and Tommy E. Cook. Case 9-CB- 4482-2 18 June 1987 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On 22 April 1986 Administrative Law Judge Hutton S. Brandon issued the attached decision. The Respondent Local 5741 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, fmdings, 1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. The judge found, and we agree, that Respondent Local 5741 became a successor to Respondent Local 9639 with knowledge of its backpay li- ability and is jointly and severally liable for the balance of backpay due diScriminatee Cook. In finding Local 5741 to be a successor labor organi- zation, the judge relied on: (1) Local 574I's assumption of Local 9639's representation obligations with respect to the same employees at the same location; (2) Local 5741's administration of the same collective-bargaining agreement without any hiatus; (3) the Maintenance of some continuity of leadership by Local 5741's retention of essentially the same mine and safety committees; (4) the expression of Local 9639's members' desires by their requests to transfer to Local 5741; and (5) Local 5741's succession to the only shown asset of Local 9639—the future dues obligations of its former members. We adopt the judge's reasoning in all respects. We specifically reject the Respondent's contention that the judge's finding number (5) above is contrary to the parties' stipulation that no money or property of Local 9639 was transferred to Local 5741. In con- text, we find that the stipulation addresses the nature of the relationship between the two locals at the time of the transfer. The stipulation does not encompass future dues obligations or decide the question whether they constitute an asset. It is undisputed that Local 5741 has received the benefits of the union dues paid by the former Local 9639 members. We conclude that the judge properly found such dues payments constituted an asset to which Local 5741 succeeded and that his finding did not con- travene the parties' stipulation The phrase "both house talk" in sec. B of the judge's decision should read "bath house talk" We also note that 29 additional retired members of Local 9639, not 25 as stated by the judge, transferred to Local 5741 by 21 July 1983. 2 Interest on backpay shall be computed as prescribed in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 5741, United Mine Workers of America, Letcher County, Kentucky, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. Andrew L. Lang, Esq., for the General Counsel. James R. Hampton, Esq., of Hazard, Kentucky, for Re- spondent Local 5741. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HuTroN S. BRANDON, Administrative Law Judge. On 27 February 1981 the Board issued its order in this pro- ceeding adopting, in the absence of exceptions, a decision of an administrative law judge fmding that Local Union No. 9639, United Mine Workers of America (Local 9639) had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing Beth-Elkhorn Corporation to constructively dis- charge Tommy E. Cook on 30 August 1979. The Board adopted the judge's recommended Order that required Local 9639, its officers, agents, and representatives, to make Cook whole for any loss of earnings or other bene- fits he suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination against him. On 31 July 1981 the Regional Director for Region 9 of the Board issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing alleging that the backpay due Cook under the Board's order was $12,327.65, plus interest. Thereafter on 4 June 1982 Local 9639, Cook, and the General Counsel entered into a stipulation and motion to transfer the case to the Board with respect to the back- pay due. The Board in a supplemental order dated 8 July 1982 approved the stipulation that also provided for the entry of a consent judgment by any appropriate United States court of appeals. The Board's supplemental order was enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on 19 August 1982. On 3 September 1982 Local 9639 filed a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 7 (liquidation) of Title 11 United States Code. The United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Kentucky (Pikeville division) appointed a trustee for liquidation of Respondent's as- sests, and the Board, on behalf of Cook, filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy court. 1 The assets of Local 9639's estate in the amount of $2,102.63 were paid to Cook by order of the bankruptcy court entered on 31 July 1985. The remaining debt owed to Cook was not discharged by the bankruptcy court. On 4 December 1985 the Regional Director for Region 9 of the Board issued an order directing supple- mental hearing and notice of hearing in which it was al- leged that questions of fact had arisen concerning the re- lationship between Local 9639 and Local Union No. 5741, United Mine Workers of America (Local 5741). 1 Case 82-00098. 284 NLRB No. 47 324 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The issue framed by the order directing supplemental hearing and Local 5741's answer thereto is whether Local 5741 is jointly and severally liable with Local 9639 for the balance of backpay due Cook, as a successor labor organization of Local 9639. The matter came to hearing on 27-28 February 1986 at Pikeville, Kentucky. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Local 5741, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE MATERIAL FACTS The significant facts in this case are not in dispute. Local 9639 represented certain employees of Beth-Elk- horn Corporation at its mines 21 and 22. A collective- bargaining agreement covering these employees, the Na- tional Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1981 (NBCWA) was negotiated by United Mine Workers of America (the International). The agreement was adminis- tered more directly by Local 9639 at the local level. Dues of unit employees were deducted by Beth-Elkhorn pursuant to employee checkoff authorizations and were remitted in the name of Local 9639 to District 30, United 'Mine Workers of America (District 30). It is clear that Local 9639 was a constituent part of the District. It was among the duties of District 30 to divide the dues paid remitting a third to Local 9639, another third to the International, and keeping a third for itself. The parties stipulated that on discovery that Local 9639 would not obtain a discharge of the debt owed to Cook on 27 September 1982, Local 9639 withdrew its motion in bankruptcy court, filed about 7 September 1982, for authority to continue to operate. Thereafter, Local 9639 ceased to function and later surrendered its charter to the International. The General Counsel and counsel for Local 5741 further stipulated that between 21 October and 9 November 1982, all the approximately 55 working members of Local 9639 transferred their mem- bership into Local 5741 and by 23 November 1982 ap- proximately 190 out of 243 idle or retired members of Local 9639 also transferred their membership to Local 5741. By 21 July 1983, 25 additional retired members of Local 9639 transferred into Local 5741, Nineteen addi- tional retired members transferred into other locals of the International. It was further stipulated that at the time of these transfers, Local 5741 through its president, Bill Baker, knew that Local 9639 had been found in vio- lation of the National Labor Relations Act by causing the constructive discharge of Tommy Cook by Beth-Elk- horn and was under an order to pay backpay to Cook, and that, as a result of that financial liability, had filed bankruptcy and ceased to function. The parties agreed that no money or property of Local 9639 was transferred to Local 5741. Local 5741 was an older local than Local 9639 and at the time of the transfers from Local 9639, Local 5741 had approximately 132 active and 356 inactive members. Inasmuch as no transfer fee is required for transfer of membership from one local to another within the Inter- national, no such fees were paid by the members of Local 9639 on transferring into Local 5741. Further- more, such transferees did not execute new dues-deduc- tion authorization cards in behalf of Local 5741. Beth- Elkhorn continued to remit dues to District 30 for former Local 9639 members who had transferred into Local 5741. These remissions were in the name of Local 9639 until at least December 1982 when, by letter dated 27 December 1982, Bobby Roy Justice, secretary-treasur- er of District 30, advised Beth-Elkhorn that Local 9639 men had transferred into Local 5741 and requested that in the future their dues and assessments be submitted under the name of Local 5741. It was stipulated that those dues remitted by Beth-Elkhorn under the name of Local 9639, after that local ceased to operate and before Justice's 27 December letter, were not returned to Beth- Elkhorn by District 30. Local 5741 admitted that it had received the benefits of the union dues paid by the former members of Local 9639. Local 5741 further admitted at the hearing that at all times since the transfer of the former members of Local 9639, Local 5741 has acted as the collective-bargaining representative of such employees of Beth-Elkhorn at mines 21 and 22 and had assumed the rights and obliga- tions incidental the administration of the collective-bar- gaining agreement. It was stipulated that no Local 9639 officers became officers of Local 5741 on transfer of their membership until 1984 when Randy Robbins, former recording secretary of Local 9639, was elected vice president of Local 5741. However, Local 9639 had three members on a mine committee at mine 21 and an equal number on a safety committee at that mine, all of whom were reappointed to those positions by the presi- dent of Local 5741 on the transfer of Local 9639 mem- bers into that local. The same was true of the one mine committee member and one safety committee member utilized at mine 22. It was the duty of the mine commit- tee to see to the adjustment of disputes arising under the collective-bargaining agreement while the function of the safety committee was to promote employee concerns re- garding mine health and safety and to inspect and ensure safe working conditions. District 30 was also substantially involved with the local union's representation of members both in process- ing of grievances and in other miscellaneous matters. For example, under the NBCWA, the District was involved in the grievance procedure for the settlement of disputes including discharges. Moreover, as pointed out by the General Counsel's brief, article V, section 3, of the con- stitution of District 30 provides: The District Executive Board shall be responsible for implementing and administering collective-bar- gaining agreements covering any member of the District, taking all necessary and appropriate meas- ures to ensure that it is fairly applied, fully en- forced, and faithfully obeyed. The same constitution also calls for district executive board members and field representatives to aid in the ad- ministration of all collective-bargaining agreements and to aid and advise local unions in various matters includ- ing the accounting and handling of union funds and the MINE WORKERS LOCAL 9639 (BETH-ELKHORN) 325 administration of affairs of the local unions. There was record testimony that District Field Representative Bill Looney assisted members of Local 9639 in their transfer into Local 5741 and was present at a membership meet- ing of the latter local when the transfers were discussed on 9 October 1982. More specifically, Randy Robbins, recording secretary for Local 9639, testified that he filled out the transfer cards for the individual members of the Local and put the seal of the Local on them. Robbins then turned the cards over to Looney who completed the execution of the cards and distributed them to the members when they asked for them. Moreover, Jerry Puckett, former president of Local 9639, testified that it was Looney who told Local 9639 members that it would be best to go into Local 5741 because it was closest geo- graphically to them. Nevertheless, the record does not establish a definitive group decision for the transfer of employees from Local 9639 to Local 5741. Rather, a consensus of the testimony is that as a result of "both house talk," former Local 9639 members individually concluded that Local 5741 was the most reasonable union to transfer into inasmuch as it was closest geo- graphically to them and the mines in which they worked.2 It is undisputed that Local 5741 took over the repre- sentation of Local 9639's former members at Beth-Elk- horn's mines 21 and 22 without any hiatus. In short, Local 5741 administered the same contract previously administered by Local 9639. Moreover, according to the testimony of Local 9639's former president, Jerry Puck- ett, Local 5741 processed grievances of employee mem- bers of Local 9639 that were in existence prior to the time of the transfers. William R. Back, recording secretary for Local 5741, testified that he had no alternative but to accept the transfers of Local 9639's men since each transfer had the seal of Local 9639 on it as well as the signature of the member seeking the transfer. Local 5741's President Baker testified that a transfer slip would be issued a member seeking to transfer into another local unless it appeared that member was continuing to work within the jurisdiction of the local union from which the trans- fer was sought. II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES The General Counsel concedes there appears to be no precedent precisely controlling in this case. However, the argument is made that a number of Board decisions on facts similar to those in the instant case have indicat- ed the Board's willingness to impose on a successor union the liability for remedying the unfair labor prac- tices of its predecessor. Two cases cited to support this argument were Carpenters Local 2565 (Ambassador Vene- tian Blind), 110 NLRB 780 (1954), and Iron Workers Local 600 (Bay City Erectors), 144 NLRB 1049 (1963). Both cases, however, as Respondent's brief points out, involve facts from which the Board could and did con- 2 It was clear that to retain International membership it was necessary for all the employees to transfer into the same local, for art. 10, sec. 4, of the International constitution provides that "No mine shall be under the jurisdiction of more than one Local Union." dude that the new unions were simply disguised continu- ances or alter egos of the unions that were initially re- sponsible for the unfair labor practices. In a third case cited by the General Counsel, Metallic Lathers Local Union 46 (Cement League), 259 NLRB 70 (1981), enf. denied 727 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1984), the Board, applying its Perma Viny13 doctrine for the first time to labor orga- nizations, concluded that United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters were obligated to remedy the unfair labor practices of the Lathers Union that had affiliated with the Carpen- ters after the commission of the unfair labor practices, the Carpenters having had knowledge of the unfair labor practices prior to the affiliation. The Perma Vinyl doc- trine holds that a bona fide successor employer who has knowledge of a pending unfair labor practice by a prede- cessor at the time of its purchase of the predecessor's business must be responsible for remedying those unfair labor practices. Although the court in, Metallic Lathers Local 46, supra, refused to enforce the Board's decision, it did so only because of its disagreement with the Board's findings that the Carpenters' Union was aware of the pendency of the unfair labor practice matter at the time of the affiliation. The General Counsel asserts that liability should be imposed here against Local 5741 particularly because Local 9639 filed its petition in bankruptcy specifically to escape its backpay obligation to Cook. Moreover, Local 5741 as well as District 30 was aware of the backpay ob- ligation at the time of the membership transfer in Local 5741 was effectuated. Local 5741 raises a number of arguments in its defense. First, it asserts that the Board's order in the decision against Local 9639 did not run to the successors or as- signs of that local. Accordingly, it concludes that no li- ability can be imposed on Local 5741 even if it is found to be a successor. Second, it contends that Local 5471 cannot be a successor because Local 9639's assets were liquidated in bankruptcy proceedings. Where there are no assets, there can be no successorship. Third, it con- tends that members of Local 9639 cannot be held liable for the Local's actions, and because Local 9639 has ceased to exist, regardless of its motivation in dissolving, any attempt to assess further liability would be tanta- mount to holding the individual members liable. Fourth, Local 5741 argues that in any event, even if it is a suc- cessor under court precedent, it cannot be held liable beyond the value of assets received from Local 9639. Be- cause Local 5741 received no such assets, no liability can be imposed. Finally, Local 5741 contends that it is nei- ther an alter ego, disgnised continuance, nor successor to Local 9639 and that under all the circumstances of this case an imposition of 9639's debt on Local 5741 would constitute an unfair hardship on it not justified by any national policy. III. CONCLUSIONS Local 5741's initial defense that the Board's initial order in this case does not extend to successors appears 3 Perma Vinyl Corp., 164 NLRB 968 (1967), enfd. sub nom. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 398 F 2d 544 (5th dr. 1968). 326 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to have been answered in the Ambassador Venetian Blind case, supra. There, the Board, largely relying on South- port Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U.S. 100 (1942), and Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9 (1945), held that if a party may probably be characterized as a successor or disguised continuance of the party against whom the original Board order was issued, it may be held liable under the order even in the absence of language in the order extending to successors and assigns. Thus, the de- termination of whether a party falls within the scope of a Board order is dependent on its relationship to the party against whom the order clearly runs rather than on the construction of the literal terms of the order. According- ly, I conclude that the failure of the Board's original order in the instant case to extend to "successors or as- signs" does not in itself preclude liability of Local 5741 if it is found to be a successor to Local 9639. The second argument of Local 5741 is premised on the liquidation of Local 9639. There being no surviving assets from the bankruptcy liquidation, the argument goes, there can be no successorship. For support of this proposition, Local 5741 relies on Seeburg Corp. v. NLRB, 105 LRRM 3355 (D.C. Ill. 1980). The argument, howev- er, presumes that a succession to physical assets is a pre- requisite to establishing successorship status. Such a pre- sumption may be valid in application in a bankruptcy proceeding involving employers as in Seeburg Corp. However, it would clearly have no application in situa- tions involving a union's disguised continuance of a prior labor organization dissolved to evade its obligations. See, e.g., Iron Workers Local 600, supra. Likewise, it would appear to have little application in union successorship situations where, as here, one union succeeds not only to the status of collective-bargaining representative of em- ployees formerly represented by the predecessor but also to administration of the same collective-bargaining agree- ment formerly administered by the predecessor. Contrary to Local 5741's third argument, a fmding of successorship under the circumstances of this case does not render members personally liable for the unlawful actions of the predecessor. It is true that it is the union itself and not its individual members that must respond for union wrongs. Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238 (1962). But imposing on a successor union the liabilities of a predecessor does not constitute the imposi- tion of liability on individual members. For this reason, Steelworkers Local 14055 (Dow Chemicals), 229 NLRB 302 (1977), and Dixie Carriers v. Maritime Union, 57 LRRM 2175 (S.D. Tex. 1964), cited by Local 5741 are inapposite. In neither case was a successorship found. Local 5741 sees Teamsters v. Buffalino, 121 LRRM 2365 (E.D. Mich. 1985), as substantiating its fourth argu- ment that even if it is deemed a successor, Local 5741 could be liable for the predecessor's backpay obligation only to the extent of the assets it received from that local. Since no assets were assumed, no liability can attach. In deciding the cited case, the court held that a joint council of the International, as interim successor, was liable for the just debts of the local union whose charter had been revoked, but it limited such liability to the extent of the assets received from the local. This lim- itation, it appears, was based on an analogy drawn by an earlier court in Lawless v. Painters, 300 P.2d 1591 (1956), to cases involving a transfer by a corporation of its assets to a successor corporation without a merger. In that situ- ation, a creditor can trace only the transferor's physical assets in the hands of the transferee. Moreover, the court in Buffalina, although following the Lawless analogy and result, further supported its own decision with the obser- vation that the holding was consistent with a provision in the International union's constitution in that case as- serting that the international was not responsible for the obligations of a subordinate body that surrendered its charter. No such constitutional provision has been cited as applicable in the instant case. Further, the court in Buffalino was not faced with the frustration of the effec- tuation of a remedy for a violation of a statute as here. Application of Buffalino here would result in exactly that frustration and, accordingly, I find that it is not control- ling. In addition, and in any event, I find merit in the Gen- eral Counsel's counter argument to Buffalino that the future dues obligations of the members of Local 9639 constituted a major asset to which Local 5741 succeeded. Dues payments of its members are the economic life blood of a labor organization and normally its primary source of income. Succession to dues obligations in a very real sense is a substantial asset. Indeed it was a stake created by the collection of dues by the interim successor in the Buffalino case that was the subject of the litigation there. The dues of the members herein were like the dues of the members in Buffdino, an obli- gation of membership. (Art. XIII, UMWA constitution.) Local 5741 even received its share of the dues checked off from the former Local 9639 members without the ne- cessity of new checkoff authorizations, the original checkoffs having been executed in the name of the Inter- national. Under these circumstances, Local 5741's share of the future dues payment of former Local 9639 mem- bers qualifies as a valid asset. Therefore, even if the Buf- falino holding is applicable here to otherwise limit Local 5741's liability to the extent of Local 9639's assets, I find that such assets would include the future dues payment of the latter Local's former members. I concur in Local 5741's fifth argument that it is not an "alter ego" or "disguised continuance" of Local 9639. Local 5741 was, the record shows, an older and larger local. Former members of Local 9639 were outnumbered by the regular Local 5741 members by 2 to 1. The offi- cers of Local 5741 were not the same or even substan- tially the same as those of Local 9639. And there was no merger, consolidation, or affiliation action here involved that might establish a "continuation" of the old entity. Cf. National Carbon Co., 116 NLRB 488, 500-502 (1956); American Enka Co., 231 NLRB 1335, 1336 (1977). All these circumstances taken together militate against a fmding of an alter ego or a disguised continuance. The foregoing does not prevent the finding of the ex- istence of a successorship, however. No cases have been cited herein or otherwise ascertained through research that presents facts precisely paralleling the facts in the in- stant case and controlling it. Nevertheless, the Board in Teamsters Local 294 (Graham Ford), 188 NLRB 515, 518 MINE WORKERS LOCAL (BETH-ELKIIORN) 327 (1971), did outline the factors considered in establishing union successorships stating: In deciding whether a union is a successor [to an- other union in any particular unit], the Board looks to a number of factors, including whether demo- cratic procedures have been followed in any vote on affiliation or merger, whether the new organiza- tion has succeeded to the assets and liabilities of the predecessor, whether the employees in the bargain- ing unit have had an opportunity to register their desires, and whether there is a continuity in the leadership and representation of the employees in the bargaining unit. And in Lord Jim's, 259 NLRB 1162, 1164 (1982), the ad- ministrative law judge concluded, with apparent Board approval, that in union successorship cases "the primary concern" is whether the employees in the unit had an opportunity to pass on the change of representative. The foregoing factors or criteria are most readily ap- plied in merger or affiliation situations not present in the instant case. However, as already discussed, Local 5741 succeeded to the only shown asset of Local 9639, the future dues obligation of its membership. Moreover, it succeeded to the representation obligations of Local 9639 in the same bargaining unit of the same employees oper- ating at the same location of the same employer. Local 5741 assumed Local 9639's jurisdiction under the same International union in the same district subdivision. It succeeded, too, in administering the same collective-bar- gaining agreement with no changes whatsoever and ap- parently without any hiatus in representation. It even processed grievances originally filed with Local 9639. Although the officers of Local 5741 were not the same as those of the other local, some continuity in leadership was maintained in the retention and reappointment of es- sentially the same mine committees and safety commit- tees at both Beth-Elkhorn's mines 21 and 22. And with respect to the "primary concern" in union successorship cases, although there was no evidence of a formal vote among Local 9639's members concerning their desires to transfer into Local 5741, it is quite clear that they indi- vidually sought transfer into Local 5741 with the assist- ance, if not direction, of District 30, and in that manner "registered" their desires. Considering all the foregoing, I am persuaded that Local 5741 is a successor to Local 9639. I further find that Local 5741 had knowledge of the outstanding unfair labor practice violation by the predecessor union prior to the time it achieved successorship status. I find unpersua- sive and thus do not credit the testimony of Local 5741's president Bill Baker to the effect that he believed at the time of the transfers of the former Local 9639 members that the backpay liability of that local was discharged by the bankruptcy proceedings. Given the fact that the par- ties herein stipulated that the bankruptcy proceeding was filed because of the backpay obligation owed Cook, had such debt been discharged, there would not have been no need for dissolution of Local 9639 and the transfer of its members into Local 5741. Thus, it would have been unreasonable for Baker to expect otherwise. Because Local 5741 had knowledge of the backpay ob- ligation owed to Cook, the Board's principles announced in Metallic Lathers Local 46, supra, and Perma Vinyl, supra, are fully applicable here. Local 9639 is no longer a viable organization capable of remedying its violation of the Act. The employing enterprise here has not changed insofar as Cook, the victim of Local 9639's past unfair labor practice, is concerned, nor has the need for remedying the unfair labor practice. Local 5741 is not only the best but also the only organization capable of remedying the violation of Local 9639. As the successor to Local 9639, I conclude that it must do so. Contrary to the arguments of Local 5741, I fmd no na- tional labor policy against imposing liability against it in this case as a successor. Whatever hardship results from the finding of liability on Local 5741's part, which I make here, must be subservient to the damage caused to the victim of the predecessor's unfair labor practice. As was recently noted in NLRB v. Jarm Enterprises, 785 F.2d 195 (7th Cir. 1986), citing Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973), the basis for the Perma Vinyl principle is not focused on the conduct of the successor, but rather the need to prevent mere changes in title to business from frustrating national labor of policy remedy- ing unfair labor practices. It is true, unlike in employer successorship situations, Local 5741 could make no "ad- justment in purchase price" to compensate for the back- pay obligation of the predecessor. However, it was not compelled to assume representation of former Local 9639's members with their employer, and may not in equity now escape that Local's remedial obligations of which Local 5741 was aware. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed4 ORDER The Respondent, Local Union No. 5741, United Mine Workers of America, as successor to Local Union No. 9639, United Mine Workers of America, Letcher County, Kentucky, its officers, agents, and representa- tives, shall make whole Tommy E. Cook with interest for any unpaid balance of the backpay obligation arising out of the Board's supplemental order in Case 9-CB- 4482-2 dated 8 July 1982. 4 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.