Royal Iolani Apartment Owners

ROYAL IOLANI APARTMENT OWNERS 107 The Association of Apartment Owners of the Royal Iolam and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO Case 37- CA-2067 December 30, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS On June 29, 1984, Administrative Law Judge Earldean V S Robbins issued the attached deci- sion The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief The Acting 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, as further discussed below, and to adopt the recommended Order The question presented here is whether the Re- spondent unlawfully refused to recognize and bar- gain with Hotel Employees and Restaurant Em- ployees Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO as the Board- certified representative of the Respondent's em- ployees We agree with the judge's finding that the Respondent was obligated to bargain with the Union despite the Union's anticipatory announce- ment of a never-completed transfer of its represent ative duties to Culinary and Service Employees Union, Local 555 We would, however, find that the violation occurred on June 27, 1983, as alleged in the complaint, rather than on March 14, as found by the judge On November 24, 1982, the Union was certified as the bargaining representative of the Respond ent's employees Approximately a week later, the Union requested certain bargaining unit informa- tion from the Respondent On December 9, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Inter national Union instructed the Union to transfer the Respondent's employees to Local 555 pursuant to a prior jurisdictional understanding In January and early February 1983,1 the Respondent furnished the Union with the requested information On Feb- ruary 17, the Union told the Respondent that it had coordinated a transfer of the Respondent's employ- ees to Local 555 and that the Respondent would soon hear from Local 555 to begin negotiations On February 25, Local 555 informed the Respondent that it had jurisdiction over the Respondent's em- ployees and expressed an intent to begin negotia tions On March 14, the Respondent sent a letter to the Union which read in part In view of the abandonment of our bargaining unit by Local 5 and the fact that our employ ees have not selected Local 555 as their repre sentative, we believe that we have no duty to bargain with either organization at this time The Union made no direct response to the March 14 letter On April 11, the Respondent's unit employees voted in a secret ballot election against transferring to Local 555 The Union had not turned over any dues or other business records for the Respondent's employees to Local 555 Also in April, the Union processed at least one griev- ance for an employee of the Respondent On June 7, the Union sent the Respondent a letter request- ing negotiations On June 27, the Respondent again replied that it was refusing to bargain with the Union because the Union had disclaimed interest in the Respondent's employees when it transferred ju- risdiction over them to Local 555 The judge correctly observed that absent unusual circumstances, the majority status of a certified union is presumed to continue for 1 year from the date of certification She found that, at the time the Respondent was notified of the transfer of its em ployees, the Union had only initiated a process that was never completed because the unit employees voted against the transfer Consequently, the judge concluded that there were no unusual circum- stances here, and she found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing on and after March 14 to negotiate with the Union In Sisters of Mercy Health Corp ,2 which issued subsequent to the judge's decision, the Board found that an employer was not obligated to bargain with a local union that had disclaimed interest in repre senting bargaining unit employees and had attempt- ed to transfer jurisdiction over the bargaining unit to another local In Sisters of Mercy, however, the disclaimer by the longstanding incumbent union (Local 417) was induced by a petition signed by a majority of unit employees stating that they no longer wanted to be represented by Local 417 The International responded to the employees' ex- pressed wishes by transferring them to Local 7, and the employer was notified of these events by a letter dated January 27, 1983 After this transfer, Local 7 stewards appeared on the scene The em- ployer met with them while stating that it did so without prejudice to its position that it had no duty to recognize Local 7 In the meantime, an unfair ' All dates hereafter reter to 1983 2 277 NLRB 1353 (1985) 292 NLRB No 19 108 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practice charge against the employer's refusal to recognize Local 7 was filed, but it was subse quently dismissed by the Regional Director On March 24, after the dismissal had made it clear that the employer would not be required to bargain with Local 7, Local 417 wrote the employer re questing bargaining The employer, knowing that Local 417 had unequivocally disclaimed and was the bargaining representative that the employees had sought to repudiate, refused Local 417's bar gaining request The situation in Sisters of Mercy is significantly different from the present case Thus, in Sisters of Mercy, the incumbent union never acted inconsist- ently with the disclaimer between the time that it communicated it to the employer and the time that it once again sought recognition as the bargaining representative Indeed, even though there were oc- casions for meetings with stewards in the interim, it was the Local 7 stewards who appeared and not those of Local 417 In the present case, by con- trast, Local 555 never did anything on behalf of the employees except make the initial demand, on February 25, that the Respondent bargain with Local 555 representatives Furthermore, as detailed below, the Union engaged in acts inconsistent with its disclaimer during the period between Local 555's bargaining demand and June 21, when Local 5 reasserted its status as bargaining representative See Electrical Workers IBEW Local 59 (Texlite Inc), 119 NLRB 1792, 1798 (1958) ("unions `bare statement' of disclaimer is not sufficient to establish that it has abandoned its claim to representation if the surrounding circumstances justify an inference to the contrary" (footnote omitted)) In our view, it does not effectuate the policies of the Act to find an effective disclaimer under the circumstances of this case, and thereby to relieve the Respondent of its duty to bargain with the re- cently certified Union Here, the unit employees voted for representation by Local 5 and then had that representation temporarily delayed by a deci sion of the International to award "jurisdiction" over those employees to Local 555 Although Local 5 apparently acquiesced for a brief period in the prospect of losing its representative status, it is clear that it did not act as if the transfer had been effectuated First, it did not turn over dues and records to Local 555 Then, in April, Local 5 proc- essed a unit employee's grievance, consulted the unit employees about the transfer, and learned through the employees' secret ballot vote that they did not want to be "awarded" to a labor organiza tion for which they had not voted Consequently, when the Union requested bargaining on June 21, it had not followed through on its original and pre- mature disclaimer and instead had behaved as if it were still the representative Moreover, we find that any temporary confusion on the Respondent's part about the Union's con tinuing claim to representative status was not an unusual circumstance justifying abrogation of its bargaining duty in the certification year Indeed, there is no evidence that the Respondent protested against dealing with Local 5 as the grievance rep- resentative in April or that, prior to Local 5's June 21 request to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement, the Respondent had relied to its detri- ment on a belief that Local 5 had fully and effec- tively disclaimed representation of the unit employ- ees Instead, it appears that the Respondent was simply taking advantage of the situation to void the unit employees' recent electoral choice of a collec- tive bargaining representative In sum, when the Respondent received Local 5's June 21 letter expressing a readiness to represent unit employees and a desire to meet with the Re- spondent to negotiate an agreement, the Respond ent was under a duty, at the very least, of ascer taming whether the `transfer" of jurisdiction to Local 555 had ever been consummated See Loree Footwear Corp, 197 NLRB 360 (1972) (in determin- ing whether alleged schism in incumbent union warrants lifting the contract bar, Board looks to whether the incumbent is presently willing and able to represent the employees" (emphasis added)), cited in Pioneer Inn & Pioneer Inn Casino v NLRB, 578 F 2d 835, 839 (9th Cir 1978) In the circumstances here, Local 5's premature and ulti mately mistaken disclaimer of its certified repre sentative status was not sufficient to relieve the Re- spondent of all obligation under the Act to deal with Local 5 thereafter Accordingly, through its June 27 letter rejecting Local 5's bargaining re- quest out of hand, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, the Associa tion of Apartment Owners of the Royal Iolani, Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order 9 We would not like the judge date the Respondents refusal to bar gain from March 14 1983 The Respondent did not violate its obligation to bargain with Local 5 in March since Local 5 was not at that point requesting bargaining ROYAL IOLANI APARTMENT OWNERS 109 MEMBER JOHANSEN , dissenting I would not assert jurisdiction here for the rea sons set forth in the dissent in Imperial House Con- dominium, 279 NLRB 1225 (1986) David F Sargent Esq for the General Counsel Gregory M Sato Esq (Torkildson Katz Jossem & Fon seta), of Honolulu, Hawaii, for the Respondent Sean Kim Esq (Gill Park Park & Kim), of Honolulu, Hawaii, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EARLbEAN V S ROBBINS , Administrative Law Judge This matter was heard before me in Honolulu , Hawaii, on March 8, 1984 The charge was filed by Hotel Em ployees and Restaurant Employees Union , Local 5, AFL-CIO (Local 5 or the Union), and served on the As sociation of Apartment Owners of the Royal Iolanf (Re spondent), on August 9, 1983 The complaint, which issued on September 27, 1983 , alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act The basic issue here is whether Respond ent unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the certified representative of its employees On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION At all times material, Respondent, an association of apartment owners with an office and place of business located in Honolulu, Hawaii has been engaged in the management of a condominium complex During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint Re spondent, in the course and conduct of the business oper ations, received gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased materials and supplies in excess of $50 000 which originated outside the State of Hawaii The complaint alleges Respondent admits and I find that Respondent is now and at all times material has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background Prior to March 1980 Local 5 had jurisdiction over class A facilities and about nine class B facilities i In March 1980, the Union was instructed by its parent body to cede jurisdiction of class B facilities to sister Local 555 Thereafter, Local 5 informed the affected employees of the desire to transfer them to Local 555 and informed them that they must signify their intent to transfer by either a secret election or by signing authorization cards for Local 555 and that, on a showing that a majority of the employees had signified their desire to transfer they would be transferred from Local 5 to Local 555 A ma jonty of the employees of seven of these employers indi cated a desire to transfer however, a majority of the em ployees of two of these employers remained adamant in their desire to continue to be represented by Local 5 Thereafter the transfer of the employees at the seven fa cilities was effected by means of a transfer card and the applicable dues records, business records-including the certification and Board records-correspondence files contract files grievance files, and moneys were turned over to Local 555 The employees of the two facilities were not transferred and the affected employers were so notified B Facts On September 10 1982, the Union filed a represents tion petition with the Board seeking to represent certain of Respondents employees About the same time the Union notified its International that it had filed the peti tion, and that in view of its understanding that the Inter national had the right to award jurisdiction for these em ployees at its discretion on the winning of the election and being desirous of avoiding any jurisdictional dis putes the Royal Iolanf employees had been signed on International Union authorization cards 2 On November 24 1982, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondents em ployees in the following unit All full time and regular part time maids, janitors, gardeners and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at the Royal Iolanf condominium in Honolulu, Hawaii, excluding all other employees guards and supervisors as defined in the Act By letter dated December 1 1982 Richard Tam, finan cial secretary/treasurer of the Union requested that Re spondent furnish the Union with the names social secure ty numbers, dates of hire job classifications and applica ble job descriptions if any of all bargaining unit employ ees a breakdown of benefits bonuses profit sharing in centive plans pension plans and the pertinent literature covering them breakdown of medical plans, cost, and who is covered, and copies of house rules employer em ployee agreements, contracts, etc By letter dated De cember 9 1982, the International president instructed Tam to turn over the Royal Iolanf employees to Local 555 pursuant to the prior jurisdictional understanding 'Richard Tam Respondents financial secretary/treasurer testified that the differences between class A and class B facilities have never been spelled out in writing but that generally class A refers to large oper ations with superior quality of service high room rates food and bever age service room service and valet service Class B facilities do not have these amenities 2 The representation petition named the Union as the Petitioner 110 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On January 25, 1983,3 Respondents attorney, Jared H Jossem, furnished the Union with the names social secu my numbers, classification and hire date of the seven unit employees By letter dated February 3, Tam request ed that Respondent furnish all the information previously requested By letter dated February 15, Jossem sent Tam information regarding Respondent's medical plan and in formed him that no other benefit plans existed nor did Respondent have any written house rules in effect On February 17, Tam wrote Jossem a letter, the body of which reads Due to the jurisdictional understanding we have with Local 555, Edward T Hanley, General Presi dent of the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employ ees International Union, has requested the transfer of the Royal lolani Condominium from Local 5 to Local 555 We have coordinated the transfer with Local 555 and you should be hearing from them shortly to begin negotiations On February 25, Billy Kurch, president of Local 555, wrote a letter to Respondent, the body of which reads This is to inform you that jurisdiction of the bar gaining unit employees of the ROYAL IOLANI petitioned in the name of the HOTEL EMPLOY EES & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTER NATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, and identified in National Labor Relations Board Case No 37-RC- 4073, has been awarded to CULINARY AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 555, AFL-CIO for the purposes of collective bargaining representation (Copies of correspondence relative to H E R E 's award are enclosed for your records ) In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board's certification of the Union in the identified case please accept this letter as official notification of our intent to negotiate a first time agreement with your firm In order to expedite such negotiations, we ve also enclosed copies of correspondence between Local Five (our sister union) and Mr Jared Jossem rela tive to negotiations preparation for the employees Also in preparation of the coming negotiations please be aware that the Union will be proposing a substantial increase in wages, benefits and condi tions of employment, and it is our expressed wish to reach an early and equitable settlement in these ne gotiations Representing the Union in the negotiations will be myself as President of Local 555 It shall be un derstood that the Union reserves the right during negotiations to amend, modify, or change its pro posals It is further understood that there shall be no agreement between the Union and the Employer unless such agreed terms are ratified by the employ ees of the bargaining unit and such Agreement doc 3 Unless otherwise indicated all dates will be in 1983 ument is signed by both the President and Secre tary Treasurer of Local 555 Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter We are looking forward to a harmonious collective bargaining relationship May we hear from you within a few days so that we may set a date and time to begin to negotiate? On March 14, Robert H Prahler, president of Re spondent's board of directors, sent a letter to the Union, the body of which reads In view of the abandonment of our bargaining unit by Local 5 and the fact that our employees have not selected Local 555 as their representative, we believe that we have no duty to bargain with either organization at this time Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me On April 11, the Union held a meeting with unit em ployees at which time a secret ballot election was held concerning whether the employees wished to transfer from the Union to Local 555 A majority of the employ ees voted against transferring to Local 555 The Union did not turn over any dues or other busi ness records of the Royal Iolani employees to Local 555 and, in April, it processed at least one grievance for a Royal lolani employee On June 21 Tam sent Jossem a letter requesting negotiations, the body of which reads Attached hereto are the Union s proposals to effect a collective bargaining agreement by and be tween the Association of Apartment Owners, the Royal lolani and the Hotel Employees & Restau rant Employees Local 5 AFL-CIO The Union reserves the right to add to amend and modify its proposals during the course of nego tiations The Union and its negotiating committee are pre pared to meet within seven (7) days, in meaningful and fruitful negotiations Please contact Clifford Caesar, Supervisor of Or ganizing, who shall be the Union s lead spokesper son, to arrange a satisfactory date when such nego tiations can commence On June 27 Jossem responded by letter, the body of which reads Local 5 disclaimed interest in the Royal Iolani in February 1983 This disclaimer arose from the transfer of jurisdiction to Local 555 by Local 5 In particular on February 17 1983, you wrote to me informing me that Local 555 had assumed the status of bargaining representative as a result of an under standing with Mr Hanley of your International It is our opinion that where there is an attempt to substitute a new and different employee representa tive for the existing certified representative without an election or continuity of representation a ques tion of representation exists, and the National Labor Relations Board will not amend the certification of ROYAL IOLANI APARTMENT OWNERS 111 the bargaining agent nor would it compel an em ployer to bargain with the new representative Local 5 s attempt to substitute a new representative was not an unfair labor practice, nor was it a breach of the duty of fair representation Local 5, having exercised its right to disclaim in terest in representing the subject employees, the duty to bargain expires in February If you or your legal counsel believe I have mis read the law, please advise me Your invitation to bargain is therefore declined On July 21, the Union s attorney, Sean Kim, sent a letter to Jossem, the body of which reads This letter is in response to your letter to Mr Richard Tam, Secretary Treasurer of Hotel Em ployees & Restaurant Employees, Local 5, AFL- CIO dated June 27, 1983 In your letter you claim that Local 5 disclaimed interest in the Royal Iolani and your client will not bargain with Local 5 I believe that the case of Eskimo Radiator Mfg Co, 101 LRRM 1587 (1979) is dispositive of the specious arguments raised in your June 27, 1983 letter As noted in Eskimo there must be an express disclaimer of interest and an agreement by the em ployer to a new collective bargaining relationship with a different labor organization Id at 1590 There is no evidence of any express disclaimer by Local 5 Additionally, by Mr Tam's letter to you dated June 21, 1983, it is clear that Local 5 still claims its representational right to the Royal Iolani As noted in Eskimo the majority status of the certi feed union is presumed to continue for 1 year from the date of certification Please be advised that if your client does not commence bargaining with Local 5 by August 1, 1983 the appropriate charges will be brought before the NLRB If you have any questions please call C Conclusion It is well established that `absent unusual circum stances the majority status of a certified union is pre sumed to continue for one year from the date of certifi cation Celanese Corp 95 NLRB 664 671 (1951) Brooks v NLRB 348 U S 96 (1954) Sunnyland Refining Co 250 NLRB 1180 (1980) Carter Glogau Laboratories 265 NLRB 116 (1982) Respondent argues however, that where there is an attempt to substitute a noncertified, nonelected bargaining representative for newly elected and certified representatives without an election, a ques tion concerning representation exists that can only be re solved through election procedures of the Board Dycus v NLRB, 615 F 2d 820 826 (9th Cir 1980) Thus, Respondent argues, once Local 5 attempted to evade its bargaining duties by transferring the Royal Iolani bargaining unit to Local 555 it raised a question concerning representation that it cannot resolve by at tempting to reclaim its right to represent the employees I find this argument unpersuasive, and Respondents reli ance on the above cases misplaced In Dycus although the Board stated that the transfer of jurisdiction in effect constituted a valid disclaimer by the transferor union of further interests in representation of the unit the issue of bargaining obligation was not involved Rather, the issue before the Board and the court was whether the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by effectuating the transfer of jurisdiction over the bargaining unit from one local to another for discriminatory reasons and whether the transferor union breached its duty of fair representa tion Furthermore, contrary to the situation here, the transfer of jurisdiction had been fully effectuated The other cases relied on by Respondent involved mo tions to amend the certification of representative to sub stitute a sister union for the certified representative Here, Respondent has not refused to bargain with the substituted representative Rather it is refusing to bar gain with the certified representative and although the Union did notify Respondent that the transfer had been coordinated with Local 555 and Local 555 subsequently requested Respondent to bargain, the transfer was never actually effectuated Both Board law and the Union s practice requires the assent of the employees to such a transfer and the notification given by the Union to Re spondent occurred prior to the secret ballot election, which afforded unit employees the opportunity to vote for or against the transfer Thus, at the time of the notifi cation to Respondent the Union had only initiated the transfer process, which was never completed because the unit employees voted against the transfer Respondent further urges that the Union's on again off again desire to represent unit employees runs counter to the Board s policy of promotion of stability in bargaining relationships and therefore the Union should be penalized and should not be permitted to revive a right that it has deliberately given away I find no merit in this argument At the most, the Union was premature in announcing the transfer as a fait accompli However the circumstances are such that it cannot be fairly said that the Union has disclaimed any representational inter est in the unit To permit Respondent to evade its obliga tion to bargain with the Union simply because the Union inaccurately indicated to Respondent that the transfer had been effectuated would effectively deprive the unit employees of representation Such would not effectuate the policies of the Act where as here the unit employ ees had selected the Union as their collective bargaining representative the Union had been certified by the Board as such, and the proposed transfer of representa tional rights to Local 555 had never been effectuated be cause the employees rejected such a transfer and reaf firmed their desire to be represented by their certified bargaining representative In these circumstances, I find that there exists no un usual circumstances as contemplated by Celanese Corp supra and therefore Respondent was obligated to bar gain with the Union as the certified bargaining represent ative of its employees in the appropriate unit See Eskimo Radiator Mfg Co 243 NLRB 1127 (1979) 4 4 This decision does not appear in the Board s bound volumes because the Board granted the parties request to withdraw the charge and dis missed the complaint while the Board s petition for enforcement of its Order before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was pending 112 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Association of Apartment Owners of the Royal Iolani is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 5 AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 All full time and regular part time maids janitors gardeners and maintenance employees employed by Re spondent at the Royal Iolani Condominium in Honolulu Hawaii, excluding all other employees , guards and super visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 4 Since November 24, 1982 , the above named labor organization has been and now is the certified and exclu sive representative of all employees in the aforesaid ap propriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 5 By refusing about March 14 1983, and at all times thereafter to bargain collectively with the above named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining represents tive of all the employees of Respondent in the appropri ate unit Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act 6 By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced and is interfer ing with restraining and coercing employees in the ex ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend that Respond ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma tive action to effectuate the purposes of the Act Having found that Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to bargain collectively with the Union on request as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropri ate unit and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement To ensure that the employees in the appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law I shall recommend that the initial period of certification be construed as be ginning on the date Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit See Mar Jac Paul try Co 136 NLRB 785 (1962), Lamar Hotel 140 NLRB 226 229 (1962) enfd 328 F 2d 600 (5th Cir 1964), cert denied 379 U S 817 (1964) Burnett Construction Co 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964) enfd 350 F 2d 57 (10th Cir 1965) On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed5 ORDER The Respondent The Association of Apartment Owners of the Royal Iolani, Honolulu, Hawaii, its offs cers agents, successors , and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay wages hours, and other terms and conditions of em ployment with Hotel Employees and restaurant Employ ees Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargain ing representative of its employees in the following ap propriate unit All full time and regular part time maids janitors gardeners and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at the Royal Iolani Condominium in Honolulu Hawaii, excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act (b) 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 (a) On request, bargain with the above named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all em ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay wages, hours, and other terms and condi tions of employment and if an understanding is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement (b) Post at its Honolulu Hawaii facility copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 6 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20 after being signed by the Respondents 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 sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply 5 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 6 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 Nation al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board ROYAL IOLANI APARTMENT OWNERS 113 APPENDIX 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 Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect ed concerted activities ditions of employment with Hotel Employees and Res taurant Employees Union, Local 5 AFL-CIO as the ex clusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below 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, on request bargain with the above named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment and, if such an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement The bargaining unit is All full time and regular part time maids, janitors, gardeners and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at Royal Iolani Condominium in Honolulu Hawaii, excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concern ing rates of pay , wages hours and other terms and con THE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE ROYAL IOLANI