Reliable Trailer And Body, Inc.

RELIABLE TRAILER & BODY Reliable Trailer and Body, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Ag- ricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 1612 and District 15, Local Lodge 447, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Party in Interest. Case 4-CA-16353 July 19, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On March 10, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Donald R. Holley issued the attached decision. The Respondent and Machinists Local Lodge 447 each filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to these exceptions. 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 as modified.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Reliable Trailer and Body, Inc., Flor- ence, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(e). "(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or cercing employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. ' We adopt the judge's finding that the Respondent is a successor em- ployer In doing so, we are satisfied that the judge's discussion on this subject is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Fall River Dyeing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987). a We do not find that the Respondent has shown a proclivity to violate the Act or a general disregard for the employees' fundamental statutory rights as to warrant the broad cease -and-desist order recommended by the judge H,ckmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). Accordingly, we shall substitute a narrow cease-and-desist order for the broad injunctive lan- guage he recommended APPENDIX 1013 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain in good faith with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 1612 as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the following appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. The appropriate unit is: All production employees, truck drivers, jani- tors and maintenance employees employed at the P.O. Box 98, Florence, New Jersey facili- ty, excluding all other employees including office clericals, engineers, guards and supervi- sory employees as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT give effect to a collective-bargain- ing agreement executed with District 15, Local Lodge 447, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO on October 14, 1986, or to any modification or extension thereof. WE WILL NOT recognize or bargain with Ma- chinists Local 447 as the collective-bargaining rep- resentative for hourly production and maintenance employees employed at our Florence, New Jersey plant, unless and until the labor organization is cer- tified by the Board as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining agent of the employees pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act. WE WILL NOT assist Machinists Local 447 by permitting it to coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL withdraw and withhold from Machin- ists Local 447 recognition as the collective-bargain- ing representative of employees in the appropriate unit at the Florence plant. WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain col- lectively in good faith with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 1612 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the unit described above and, if an 295 NLRB No. 112 1014 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement is reached, WE WILL embody the agree- ment in a signed contract. WE WILL make whole our employees for any dues, initiation fees, and/or other assessments they may have been required to pay to Machinists Local 447, pursuant to the contract with that labor orga- nization, with interest. RELIABLE TRAILER AND BODY, INC. Josephine S. Miller, Esq., for the General Counsel. Stanley Israel, Esq., of New York, New York, for the Re- spondent. William T. Josem, Esq. (Markowitz & Richman), of Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania, for United Auto Workers. Joyce Tichy, Esq. (Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard), of New York, New York, for Machinists Union. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge. On an original charge filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 1612 (UAW) on 28 January 1987, and amended charges filed on 6 March and 16 April 1987, the Regional Director for Region 4 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on 30 April 1987 which alleged, inter alia, that Reliable Trailer and Body, Inc. (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by recognizing District 15, Local Lodge 447, Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work- ers, AFL-CIO (Machinists), as the bargaining agent of the employees employed at Respondent's Florence, New Jersey plant, executing a collective-bargaining agreement with Machinists which contained a union-security clause, and assisting Machinists, all at a time when Respondent, as a successor employer, was legally obligated to recog- nize UAW as the exclusive bargaining representative of its Florence plant employees. Respondent filed timely answer denying it had engaged in the unfair labor prac- tices alleged. The case was heard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 9 September 1987. All parties appeared and were afford- ed full opportunity to participate in the proceeding. On the entire record and from my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses who appeared to give testimony, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Reliable Trailer and Body, Inc., a New Jersey corpo- ration, is engaged in the manufacture of truck bodies and trailers at plants located in Carlstadt and Florence, New Jersey. During calendar year 1986, it sold and shipped from its New Jersey plants goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of New Jersey. It is admitted, and I find, that the named Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION It is admitted, and I find, that International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America and its Local 1612; and Dis- trict 15, Local Lodge 447, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Facts Since 1940, Respondent has owned and operated a plant located in Carlstadt, New Jersey. At times material herein, the items produced in Carlstadt were specialty trailers and van trucks used by the beverage and bakery industries. The manufacture of trailers encompassed: the assembly of a chassis, utilizing both purchased and self- manufactured components; assembly of the superstruc- ture for the trailer; mounting of the product carrying su- perstructure on the chassis; and painting, decoration, and inspection of the completed unit. The manufacture of beverage and bakery trucks involved: alteration of the frames of truck chassis received from truck manufactur- ers; fabrication and assembly of the truck body; mount- ing of the truck body on the altered chassis; and paint- ing, decorating and inspection of the completed beverage or bakery truck. Some 80-90 employees were utlizied by Respondent to accomplish the above-described work. For a period of some 20 years Machinists have been the exclusive collective-bargaining agent of the Carlstadt em- ployees. In late 1985 or early 1986, Respondent commenced ne- gotiations for the purchase of Vanco, Inc., whose plant was located in Florence, New Jersey, some 65 miles from Carlstadt. Vanco manufactured semitrailers and em- ployed 30-40 employees. UAW was certified as the ex- clusive bargaining agent of Vanco's employees in Febru- ary 1984. In November 1984 Vanco and UAW became signatory to a bargaining agreement which was to expire on 31 October 1986.1 As negotiations progressed between Vanco and Re- spondent, Machinists, on two occasions, reminded Re- spondent their collective-bargaining agreement contained a provision which required Respondent to recognize Ma- chinists as the "exclusive bargaining agent of all employ- ees in the Carlstadt plant and any other plant of the Com- pany within a radius of one hundred (100) miles from the Carlstadt plant [emphasis supplied]."2 While negotiations of the Vanco plant were continu- ing, Respondent leased 3000 to 4000 square feet of the Vanco plant and transferred two employees and a super- visor to that location. Those individuals, utilizing pur- chased parts and parts manufactured at the Carlstadt plant, commenced to manufacture trailer chassis for bev- ' See G.C. Exh. 3. 2 See R. Exh. 2. RELIABLE TRAILER & BODY erage and bakery trailers in the rented space . The Re- spondent employees assigned to work in the rented space at Vanco continued to be represented by Machinists. During September 1986, Respondent and Machinists renegotiated the contract covering the Carlstadt employ- ees. At the same time, they negotiated the terms and conditions of employment which would apply to em- ployees Respondent would employ to operate the Flor- ence plant once it was purchased from Vanco.3 On 29 September, Respondent consumated its pur- chase of Vanco's land, building, machinery, and equip- ment, and approximately 50 percent of its parts invento- ry. It did not purchase any of Vanco's corporate stock, its customer lists, its account receivables or its personnel records. Similarly, Respondent did not assume Vanco's accounts payable or other financial obligations. During September, Respondent committed itself to retain three of Vanco's top management figures and three of its line supervisors. Top management persons to be retained were Jim Lehr, Vanco's president, who was to be retained as the president of Respondent's trailer di- vision; Joe Shedleski, Vanco's vice president of manufac- turing, who was to serve in the same capacity for Re- spondent; and Jim Hallwood, Vanco's general foreman, who was to serve in the same capacity for Respondent. On 8 September, Dave Ginsberg, Vanco's owner, in- formed Frank Hanning, vice president of UAW Local 1612, that he was selling Vanco. Hanning met with Vanco's labor relations consultant Bill Crivelli and its vice president, Joseph Shedleski , on 9 September and was then informed by Shedleski that he was going over to Respondent as vice president of manufacturing and would run the Florence shop. During the meeting, Han- ning learned Respondent had a contract with Machinists, and Shedleski told him Machinists would have jurisdic- tion over the Florence plant because they had a provi- sion in their contract giving them jurisdiction. Between 9 and 26 September, Hanning sought to dis- cuss representation of the Florence employees with Re- spondent principals Dennis Guscott (brother-in-law of the president), John Adamson (vice president of manu- facturing), and Jay Hess (its president). When he contact- ed Guscott by telephone on 11 September, indicating who he was and that he represented the Vanco employ- ees and wanted to talk, Guscott pleaded press of business and promised to call him later. When Guscott had not contacted him by 15 September, Hanning telephoned him again, and Guscott suggested he should talk to Ad- amson. After seeking repeatedly to contact Adamson without success, Hanning contacted Hess on 26 Septem- ber. Hess referred him to Respondent's attorney, Stanley Israel. At that point, Hanning contacted UAW's attor- ney, William Josem. By letter dated 6 November, Josem advised Respondent he considered Respondent to be a successor employer to Vanco which was obligated to recognize UAW Local 1612 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Florence facilities employees.4 By 3 See G.C. Exh. 6, particularly "Addendum Carlstadt Plant" and "Ad- dendum Florence Plant " While negotiations were concluded on 16 Sep- tember 1986, the effective date of the agreement, it was not executed until 14 October 1986. 4 See G.C. Exh. 8. 1015 letter dated 1 December, Respondent's Attorney Israel indicated Respondent would not recognize UAW as the representative of its Florence employees; that Machin- insts Local 447 represented the employees.5 Uncontradicted employee testimony reveals that short- ly before Vanco terminated all its Florence plant em- ployees on 29 September , Shedleski and Hallwood fur- nished certain Vanco employees with Respondent em- ployment applications, indicating they should complete them if they were interested in obtaining employment with Respondent. It was stipulated that, on 28 September and again on 8 October, Respondent placed ads in the Burlington County Times which read: factory workers, Reliable Body, Co., Inc., N. Jersey Truck body and trailer manufacturer, seeks skilled production workers for its new tractor plant in Florence, New Jersey, call 201-9333-7333 to re- ceive information on employment. During the week commencing 29 September, Shedleski and Hallwood interviewed job applicants in the cafeteria of the Florence plant. Former Vanco employees who had completed Respondent applications were contacted and told to report to the plant where they completed new applications, were interviewed, and were hired to report for work on 6 October. Other applicants respond- ing to the newspaper ad were also interviewed. During the week of 29 September, Respondent accom- plished inventory functions at the Florence plant. It commenced production on 6 October, utilizing 27 former Vanco employees, 2 Carlstadt transfers , and 6 newly hired employees, who had not previously worked for Vanco. During succeeding weeks, the employee comple- ment was as follows: Week 3-2 Carlstadt transfers, 16 new employees, and 45 former Vanco employees; week 4-2 Carlstadt transfers, 17 new employees, and 47 former Vanco employees; week 6-1 Carlstadt transfer, 14 new employees, and 50 former Vanco employees. Mr. Hess indicated during his testimony that, during the above-described periods, the Florence plant employees received immediate supervision from four or five super- visors, all but one having been former Vanco supervi- sors. At the time Respondent purchased certain Vanco assets, Vanco had contracts that called for the delivery of 50-60 trailers. Work was in progress on some of the trailers and Vanco paid Respondent to complete the trailers and deliver them. Respondent accepted assign- ments of orders for trailers not started and billed custom- ers directly when the trailers were completed and deliv- ered. Respondent continues to have dealings with only one or two of Vanco's former customers. After purchasing Vanco's Florence plant and the above-described assets, Respondent transferred all man- agement and office personnel except Adamson to the Florence plant. Its computer was also moved to Flor- ence and thereafter payroll and manufacturing schedul- ing functions for both plants were accomplished in Flor- 5 G C Exh 9 1016 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ence. Adamson, who is responsible for Respondent's labor relations, was also transferred to the Florence plant later in October. While the management and office per- sonnel transferred from Carlstadt to Florence performed functions involving both plants subsequent to their trans- fers, Hess testified that Lehr, Shedleski, and Hallwood, who were brought over from Vanco, functioned exclu- sively at the Florence plant and exercised no authority over Carlstadt employees. During the period extending from 6 October to 31 De- cember 1986, the manufacturing process at the Florence plant remained essentially the same as it had been prior to Respondent's purchase of the plant. Thus, Respondent manufactured van trailers which had previously been manufactured by Vanco, and it continued to supplement beverage trailer production accomplished primarily in the Carlstadt plant by causing two employees to con- struct beverage trailer chassis at the Florence plant. Si- multaneously, however, it was implementing plans to in- tegrate the manufacture of beverage trailers and bever- age and bakery type trucks by shifting the performance of certain functions. In this regard, Hess testified that subsequent to the purchase of the Florence facility, Re- spondent installed equipment valued at approximately $350,000 in the Florence plant to enable it to paint, deco- rate, and conduct final inspection of its beverage and bakery trailers and trucks at the Florence location. Hess explained that some of the equipment, including paint- booths, was moved from the Carlstadt plant to Florence, while other needed equipment was purchased.6 The record reveals the painting, decoration , and inspection functions continued to be performed at the Carlstadt plant until the equipment installation was completed at Florence near the end of January 1987. The three em- ployee witnesses presented by counsel for the General Counsel testified, and Hess agreed, that the job functions performed by employees at the Florence plant from 6 October through the end of 1986 were essentially the same functions employees had performed while Vanco owned the Florence plant. Mr. Hess indicated during his testimony that the oper- ations of the Florence and Carlstadt plants had been markedly integrated by the time the hearing was held in the instant case. With respect to beverage trailers, he in- dicated most of the parts of the trailer chassis are manu- factured and assembled in the Florence plant; that the chassis are then taken by flatbed trailer to the Carlstadt plant where the superstructures are manufactured and in- stalled; and that the units are then returned to Florence where they are decorated, painted, inspected and deliv- ered. With respect to the beverage and bakery trucks, he indicated the stripped trucks (cab and frame) are deliv- ered by manufacturers or customers to the Florence plant where they are inspected. The trucks are then taken to the Carlstadt plant where the frames are altered and the vans, which are manufactured at Carlstadt, are installed. The trucks are then taken to Florence where they are decorated , painted, inspected, and delivered. 6 The record reveals that three employees were sent from the Florence plant to the Carlstadt plant to disassemble and move the paint booths. The employees spent 3 days performing the task. Some three or four drivers, who may be employed in either plant, accomplish transportation of the parts, trail- ers, and trucks from plant to plant. Hess testified ap- proximately one-half of the employees who decorate, paint, inspect, and deliver the beverage and bakery trail- ers and trucks were hired in Carlstadt and were trans- ferred to Florence around the end of January 1987. While van trailer production at the Florence plant is presently accomplished much as it had been accom- plished when Vanco owned and operated the Florence plant, Hess indicated that, while Vanco purchased the various component parts needed to assemble van trailers, Respondent manufacturers certain components in its Carlstadt plant, and causes them to be transported to the Florence plant where they are incorporated into the trailers.7 Hess testified Respondent plans to further integrate the manufacture of its metal preparation operation by moving it from the Carlstadt plant to the Florence plant. He indicated that effectuation of that plan would entail the installation of equipment valued at approximately $100,000 in the Florence plant. Some of the equipment would be moved from the Carlstadt plant to Florence, and other equipment would be purchased. Uncontested testimony given by Florence plant em- ployees Christopher Wood, John Lee, and Dwayne West reveals that the Florence plant employees learned they were to be represented by Machinists rather than UAW about 2 weeks after Respondent commenced production at the plant. Their testimony reveals a Machinists repre- sentative visited the plant at that time and met with the employees at 2 p .m., their scheduled breaktime. Shed- leski introduced the Machinists representative and then left the cafeteria. The representative then told the em- ployees that UAW was out and Machinists would be their bargaining representative . Thereafter, dues-checkoff authorization cards and another type of card which was not identified were distributed and completed by em- ployees. Wood and Lee credibly testified the meeting lasted 30-45 minutes and that the employees remained on the clock during the time they attended the meeting. Re- spondent admittedly deducted moneys from the pay of Florence employees for Machinists after checkoff author- izations were executed by them. Turning to the wages, hours, and benefits enjoyed by Respondent's employees employed at its Carlstadt and Florence plants, the record reveals : that Florence plant employees work from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., while Carl- stadt employees work from 8 a.m. to 5 :30 p.m.; that plantwide seniority is used and separate seniority lists for the plants are maintained; that discipline is separately en- forced at the plants; and that the wages and benefits en- joyed by employees working in the Carlstadt plant differ materially from those enjoyed by Florence plant employ- ees. With respect to wages and benefits, those portions of the 14 October agreement between Machinists and Re- spondent entitled "Addendum-Carlstadt Plant" and "Addendum-Florence Plant" contain the contractual The upper couplers, consisting of the top and bottom of the kingpin plate, are manufactured at the Carlstadt plant and trucked to the Flor- ence plant RELIABLE TRAILER & BODY 1017 wages and benefits of employees in the respective plants. Comparison of the addendums reveal , inter alia, that: the wage increase provisions applicable to Florence employ- ees are less advantageous than the provisions applicable to Carlstadt employees ; the Florence plant employees re- ceive one less paid holiday than Carlstadt employees; the Florence employees receive substantially less paid vaca- tion than Carlstadt employees; and the health and wel- fare and insurance provisions in the addendums differ. Analysis The two paramount issues in the instant case are whether Respondent is a successor employer and wheth- er the Florence plant employees were properly accreted into the Carlstadt bargaining unit. A. The Successorship Issue The test utilized to determine successorship status was recently set forth by the Board in Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 280 NLRB 1131, 1132 (1986). There the Board stated: The Board's traditional test for successorship status, affirmed by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972), is whether there is substantial continuity in the employing en- terprise. In determining whether there is substantial continuity the Board has considered several factors including continuity in employees, supervisors, em- ployee skills and functions, business location, and equipment and types of product lines. In Great Lakes Chemical, supra, the Board further in- dicated the time period relevant to the successorship de- terminations is that time when the alleged successor em- ployed a representative complement of employees.8 A key factor in making the determination is whether a ma- jority of the new employer's bargaining unit employees were members of the predecessor's unit work force at or near the time it ceased operations. Airport Bus Service, 273 NLRB 561, 562 (1984). Applying the foregoing legal principles to the essen- tially undisputed evidence in the instant record, I con- clude that Respondent is a successor employer of Vanco, Inc. The facts in the instant case clearly reveal: (1) that at all times since 6 October 1986, a majority of the employ- ees utilized by Respondent at the Florence plant were formerly members of Vanco's work force; (2) that from 6 October to 31 December 1986 the employees at the Florence plant produced the same products which were produced by Vanco, using the same job skills ; (3) that Respondent hired and utilized the plant managers and line foremen formerly utilized by Vanco; (4) that oper- ations were conducted at the same location; (5) that the same machinery and equipment was utilized; and (6) that Respondent had, by the time UAW demanded recogni- tion on 6 November 1986, clearly hired a representative complement of employees at the Florence plant.9 While the above noted facts would appear to compel a conclusion that Respondent is Vanco's successor as al- leged, Respondent maintains in its brief (p. 8) that the facts in the instant case reveal there was no substantial continuity in the employing enterprise . In support of the contention it is asserted the record reveals : that Respond- ent did not purchase a going enterprise, but merely pur- chased some of Vanco's assets; that Respondent serves an entirely different market than Vanco (and with differ- ent products); that there was no transfer of customers from Vanco to Respondent; that the Florence facility continues to be retooled to fit Respondent's business rather than to continue Vanco's business ; and that Vanco's bargaining unit employees were permanently laid off at the time of sale with no assurance of reem- ployment by Reliable . Comparing the above summarized factors with the decision in Radiant Fashions, 202 NLRB 938 (1973), Respondent contends I should conclude it is not the successor to Vanco. Respondent's contention- has surface appeal because the Board, on facts similar to those which Respondent claims are reflected by the present record , did find in Radiant Fashions that there was no successorship because there was no continuity in the employing enterprise. Briefly, the factual situation in Radiant Fashions was one wherein Charmfit (Charmfit of Hollywood, Inc.) closed a ladies brassiere plant located in Los Angeles with the intention of continuing to manufacture the same type of brassieres in Brooklyn and Puerto Rico. All employees were terminated in June and were given severance pay. At the time of the closing, no purchaser had been found. Approximately 1 month later, the former president of Charmfit commenced negotiations to purchase the physi- cal assets in the Los Angeles plant and to assume a lease on the premises . In late August, Radiant Fashions, a cor- poration created by the former Charmfit president during the purchase/sale negotiations, agreed to purchase the physical assets in the plant , which included all sewing machines, tables, and office equipment, and it agreed to not manufacture or sell Charmfit's line of brassieres. When the plant was then reopened in early September, Radiant Fashions commenced operations as a sewing contractor. In that capacity, it merely sewed together the products received from jobbers . It did not design, manu- facture, or market its own products as Charmfit had. In the circumstances described, the Board found that the lengthy hiatus in operations (2-1/2 to 3 months), the evi- dence pointing towards a purchase of assets rather than the purchase of an ongoing business, the absence of any significant carryover in customers, and the differences in the market served by Charmfit and Radiant Fashions, in- dicated an extinguishment of the continuity of Charmfit's business. I reject Respondent's contention that Radiant Fashions is applicable here because I do not accept its character- ization of the facts in the instant case. While it is true 8 See also Hudson River Aggregates, 246 NLRB 192 (1979), enfd. 639 F.2d 865 (2d Or. 1981) 9 Approximately 65 employees worked at the Florence plant on 6 No- vember and 48 of them were former Vanco employees. 1018 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Respondent did not purchase a going business from Vanco in the sense that it purchased everything Vanco had and assumed that corporation 's liabilities, I note that, prior to the 29 September purchase , Respondent was not in the business of manufacturing semitrailers. Commenc- ing 6 October, it was. Moreover, it undertook to fill orders that Vanco had received prior to the sale for 50- 60 semitrailers. Similarly, Respondent's contention that the record reveals it serves an entirely different market from Vanco, with different products, is only partially ac- curate. Patently, Respondent, by making the described contention, seeks to place great emphasis on these por- tions of the record which reveal its beverage truck and trailer activities, and, at the same time, seeks to down- play the fact that from 6 October forward it was selling semitrailers in the market which requires such trailers. Similarly, the claim that the record reveals there was no transfer of customers from Vanco to Respondent is not absolutely accurate. As noted above, Respondent pro- duced 50-60 semitrailers for Vanco customers immedi- ately after it commenced operations , and the record re- veals quite clearly that it continues to have dealings with at least some of Vanco's customers . With respect to the retooling effort allegedly aimed at fitting the Florence plant to Respondent's needs rather than continuing Vanco's business, I note that the retooling in question had no significant impact on operations at the Florence plant until 2 or 3 months after Respondent had hired a representative complement in the Florence plant and UAW had requested recognition as the bargaining repre- sentive of those employees . In the circumstances de- scribed, the retooling evidence relied on by Respondent is not particularly relevant to a determination of its status as a successor employer. See Great Lakes Chemical, supra. In sum, the facts in the instant case reveal that former Vanco employees could have reasonably expected con- tinuation of employment at the Florence plant subse- quent to Vanco's sale of its land, building and equipment to Respondent because Respondent engaged the services of Vanco top management and line supervisors prior to consumation of the sale, and employment applications were distributed by those persons to unit employees. The record further reveals that when Respondent com- menced operations at the Florence plant, it manufactured the same products which had been manufactured by Vanco prior to the sale, and the employees who partici- pated in the manufacturing process utilized the same skills, machinery and equipment they had formerly used. The hiatus in operations between the time Vanco termi- nated its employees and the time Respondent com- menced production was only 1 week, and Respondent sold the semitrailers it produced subsequent to the acqui- sition to former Vanco customers and to persons and/or firms in the trucking industry . The above facts, viewed in conjunction with the undisputed fact that at all times a distinct majority of the production employees working in the Florence plant were former Vanco employees who had been represented by UAW, compels a conclusion that Respondent is the successor to Vanco. B. The Accretion Issue The court, in NLRB v. Security Columbian Banknote Co., 541 F.2d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 1976), defined accretion, stating: Simply stated, an accretion is the incorporation of employees into an already existing larger unit when such a community of interest exists among the entire group that the additional employees have no separate unit identity. Thus, they are properly gov- erned by the larger group's choice of bargaining representative. The court thereafter indicated the factors which should be considered when resolving accretion issues as: integration of operations , centralization of manageri- al and administrative control and geographic prox- imity. Also relevant are similarity of working condi- tions, skills and functions , common control over labor relations, collective bargaining history and interchangeability of employees. [Citations omitted.] The Board has long held that a presumption arises that single-plant units are appropriate bargaining units.10 The party seeking to rebut the presumption favoring a single- plant unit must be able to show that the day-to-day inter- est of the employees at the location sought have merged with those of the employees at the other location. The facts in the instant case clearly reveal that the em- ployees working in the Florence plant, who were repre- sented prior to the sale by UAW, have not lost their sep- arate identity. Thus, when the former Vanco employees were hired by Respondent, they constituted a numerical majority of the employees working in the Florence plant, and they performed essentially the same functions they had performed while employed by Vanco, using the same work skills. While Respondent's top management official and its office staff at the Carlstadt plant were im- mediately transferred to the Florence plant, and payroll and corporate labor relations were thereafter handled at the Florence location, separate labor contracts deter- mined the wages, hours, and working conditions at the two plants, and the terms and conditions of employment of employees working in the two plants differed marked- ly. Discipline at the two plants was administered sepa- rately, and each plant maintained a separate seniority test. The record reveals there was minimal interchange of employees between the plants . While a significant amount of retooling was accomplished to integrate the two plants operationally , none of the employees manu- facturing semitrailers were displaced. Although new functions were performed at the Florence plant once beverage trucks and trailers were sent there for painting, decoration, and inspection, the record fails to reveal that a significant number of Carlstadt employees were trans- ferred to the Florence plant to accomplish those tasks. Finally, undisputed facts reveal the Florence plant em- ployees were supervised after they were hired by Re- 10 See for example Penn Color, Inc., 249 NLRB 1117, 1119 (1980); Hegins Corp., 255 NLRB 1236 (1981) RELIABLE TRAILER & BODY 1019 spondent by essentially the same individuals who had su- pervised them when they were employed by Vanco. Consideration of the facts enumerated above in con- junction with that evidence which reveals that UAW, at all times pertinent, sufficiently manifested its desire to continue to represent the former Vanco unit employees hired by Respondent to perform essentially the same functions at the Florence plant, causes me to conclude Respondent has failed to establish that the Florence plant employees should be treated as an accretion to the Carl- stadt bargaining unit. The same facts cause me to con- clude that the Florence plant employees , who are sepa- rated from Carlstadt employees by some 65 miles, consti- tute an appropriate unit for bargaining . Accordingly, I find the unit set forth in the complaint to be appropriate. C. Conclusions Having found that Respondent is the successor to Vanco and that it has failed to rebut the presumption that the above-described Florence plant unit constitutes a separate appropriate unit for bargaining , I find it violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) by refusing since 1 December 1986 to recognize and bargain with UAW as the exclu- sive bargaining agent of unit employees employed at the Florence plant. Moreover, as it is admitted that Respond- ent became signatory to, and effectuated, a collective- bargaining agreement with Machinists containing a union-security clause at a time when Machinists did not represent a majority of the Florence plant employees subsequently covered by such agreement, I find that, by engaging in such action, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. Finally, noting the record clearly reveals Respondent assisted Machinists by intro- ducing their representative to Florence plant employees and thereafter permitting such representative to solicit dues-checkoff authorizations in the plant during working hours and during worktime , I find Respondent, by such actions, engaged in additional violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. I t CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Reliable Trailer and Body, Inc. is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 1612; and District 15, Local Lodge 447, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act since 1 December 1986 by refusing to recognize and bargain collectively and in good faith with UAW as i i The complaint alleges that Respondent , through the actions of Shed- leski and Hallwood , rendered assistance to Machinists on 3 October 1986 by telling employees IAM was their new bargaining representative. Em- ployees John Lee and Christopher Wood testified Shedleski told them the two Unions would have to work it out when they asked which Union would represent Florence employees after Respondent acquired the plant. In the circumstances, I refrain from finding the violation alleged the exclusive bargaining agent of employees in the fol- lowing appropriate unit: All production employees, truck drivers, janitors and maintenance employees employed at the P.O. Box 98, Florence, New Jersey facility, excluding all other employees including office clericals, engi- neers, guards and supervisory employees as defined in the Act. 4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by granting recognition to Machinists Local Lodge 447 as the exclusive bargaining agent of employ- ees in the above unit, notwithstanding the fact that Ma- chinists Lodge 447 did not represent a majority of em- ployees in the unit; by entering into and maintaining a collective-bargaining agreement with Machinists which contained union-security provisions ; by deducting union dues and/or other moneys from the unit employees' wages on behalf of Machinists; and by unlawfully assist- ing Machinists by permitting them to solicit dues-check- off authorization cards from unit employees during working time at the Florence plant. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has committed various unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. Respondent will be required to withdraw and withhold recognition from Machinists Local 447 and to cease giving effect to the collective- bargaining agreement entered into with that labor orga- nization. Additionally, Respondent will be required to re- imburse its employees for any dues and initiation fees which may have been improperly withheld from employ- ees' pay pursuant to the union -security provisions and/or checkoff provisions of Respondent's unlawfully executed contract with Machinists Local 447, with interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 238 NLRB 1173 (1987). Further, Respondent shall be required to recognize and to bargain with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America and its Local 1612 in the unit described below and, if agreement is reached , to reduce the agreement to a written contract. The appropriate unit is: All production employees, truck drivers, janitors and maintenance employees employed at the P.O. Box 98, Florence, New Jersey facility, excluding all other employees including office clericals, engi- neers, guards and supervisory employees as defined in the Act. Finally, while General Counsel requests that a visita- torial clause be included in any order issued in this case, I note the Board has declined to include such clauses in cases which do not appear to pose complicated compli- ance problems. See for example Cherokee Marine Termi- nal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988). In my view, the Order in this case will pose no significant compliance problem, 1020 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and provisions set forth in the Order which require the Respondent to preserve and make available to the Board described records necessary to analyze the amount of dues and/or initiation fees reimbursement due will suf- fice. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed12 ORDER The Respondent, Reliable Trailer and Body, Inc., Florence, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 1612 as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in the following appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment . The appro- priate unit is: All production employees, truck drivers, janitors and maintenance employees employed at the P.O. Box 98, Florence, New Jersey facility, excluding all other employees including office clericals, engi- neers, guards and supervisory employees as defined in the Act. (b) Giving effect to a collective-bargaining agreement executed with Machinists Local 447 on 14 October 1986, or to any modification or extension thereof. (c) Recognizing or bargaining with Machinists Local 447 as the collective-bargaining representative for hourly production and maintenance employees employed at its Florence, New Jersey plant, unless and until said labor organization is certified by the Board as the exclusive collective-bargaining agent of said employees pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act. (d) Assisting Machinists Local 447 by permitting it to solicit dues-checkoff authorizations in the Florence plant during worktime. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw and withhold from Machinists Local 447, recognition as the collective -bargaining representa- tive of employees in the appropriate unit at the Florence plant. (b) Recognize and, on request, bargain collectively in good faith with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 1612, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of employees in the unit de- scribed in paragraph 1(a) above and , if an agreement is reached, embody said agreement in a signed contract. (c) Make whole its employees for any dues, initiation fees, and/or other assessments they may have been re- quired to pay to Machinists Local 447, pursuant to the contract with that labor organization in the manner de- scribed in the remedy section of this decision. (d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all records necessary to analyze and compute the moneys due and owing to employees under the terms of this rec- ommended Order. (e) Post at its Florence, New Jersey facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1 a Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply. 12 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. 10 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."