Hollander Manufacturing Co., Inc.

466 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hollaender Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Local Lodge 789, District Lodge 34 of the Internation- al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-26470 August 16, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND OVIATT On January 10, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Nancy M Sherman issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order 1 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Hollaender Manufacturing Company, Inc, Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order 'In affirming the judge, Member Ovtatt understands the judge in her remedy to have rejected any argument that the employees would have repudiated the Union even had the Respondent offered to the Union the guarantees it made directly to employees in its May 9 handout A with- drawal of recognition is time specific in that at the moment an employer communicates Its decision to withdraw recognition to the union the em- ployer must have objective evidence that the union has lost its majonty status Here, the petition that the employees no longer wanted the Union to represent them was signed by 16 employees The unit, however, In- cluded 30 regular employees and 4 probationary employees Because the Respondent communicated its decision to withdraw recognition to the Union before the two probationary employees resigned on May 8, their resignations (which would have reduced the unit to 32 employees) were immatenal to the question whether the Respondent had an objective basis for withdrawing recognition at the time It communicated that withdrawal to the Union Mark Mehas, Esq , for the General Counsel Donald B Hordes, Esq , of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Re- spondent Richard .1 Carter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE NANCY M SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge This case was heard before me in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Sep- tember 8, 1989, on the basis of a charge filed on May 24, 1989, by Local Lodge 789, District Lodge 34 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union) against Respondent Hollaender Manufacturing Company, Inc , and a com- plaint issued on July 12, 1989 The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act (the Act) by withdrawing recognition from the Union, and thereafter refusing to bargain with it, as the exclusive representative of certain employees of Respondent On the basis of the entire record, including the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by Respondent and counsel for the Gen- eral Counsel (the General Counsel), I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent is a corporation which manufactures and sells structural fittings and related products at Cincinnati, Ohio During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent sold and shipped from that fa- cility products, goods, and materials valued at more than $50,000 directly to points outside Ohio I find that, as Respondent admits, Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that assertion of ju- risdiction over its operations will effectuate the policies of the Act The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background On December 13, 1965, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the following ad- mittedly appropriate umt All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by [Respondent] at its Cincinnati, Ohio facil- ity including truck drivers, building maintenance man, shipping and receiving clerk and all other plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act Thereafter, the parties had ongoing collective-bargain- ing relations for several years and entered into a series of successive collective-bargaining agreements The most recent of these agreements became effective in June 1986 and expired on May 31, 1989 The recognition clause of this agreement provided The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative with respect to rates of pay, wages and other conditions of em- ployment for all employees of the Company within the bargaining unit defined in [sic] the National Labor Relations Board in Case No 9-RC-6474as follows All production and maintenance employees of the Company at its plant and operations located 299 NLRB No 59 HOLLAENDER MFG CO 467 at 10285 Wayne Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45215, mcludmg truckdnvers, building maintenance man, shipping and receiving clerk and all other plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards and professional em- ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act That contract also provided During the first three (3) months of continuous employment, a new employee shall be considered a probationary employee, he shall not be entitled to any of the benefits of this contract other than the wage rates, and his employment may be terminated at any time during such period At the end of this probationary period he shall acquire seniority as of the date of his latest hiring Gary Thomas, Respondent's production control man- ager when he testified for Respondent on September 8, 1989, credibly testified that he had never had a situation where a probationary employee filed a grievance Thomas was Respondent's production control manager as of May 5, 1989, the record fails to show when he began to work for Respondent at the plant in question The 1986-1989 bargammg agreement provided, "Contin- uous service shall be broken and his employment shall terminate if the employee is absent for work for three (3) days without havmg reported for work, unless he shall, before noon the day following such absence, present a written statement showing a justifiable reason for such absence " Thomas-testified that although nonprobationary employees cannot be fired for an absen- teeism of less than 4 days, probationary employees can be terminated at any time The 1986-1989 bargaining agreement included a union- shop clause with a 30-day grace period In practice, em- ployees were not requested to join the Union until after they had completed their 90-day probationary period Prior to May 5, 1989, 1 Respondent and the Umon had agreed to set up negotiation meetings for a new collec- tive-bargammg agreement The first meeting was sched- uled for Monday, May 8 B The Employee Petition As of about May 2, several of Respondent's employees were dissatisfied with the Union, and wanted to see if they "could have the Union go out" Inferentially in consequence of discussions among them, unit employee Phyllis Dugger, a member of the Union, telephoned the National Labor Relations Board's Cincinnati Regional Office at 415 or 4 30 p m on May 2 or 3 A male voice answered the telephone, and said, "this is the Labor Re- lation Board" or the "Labor Relation Office" She told him that "some of the union membership at our compa- ny," which she did not identify by name, "wanted to find out what they should do to not have a union any more" He told her that "you start a decertification peti- tion" Dugger, who impressed me as a wholly honest witness, testified for Respondent on direct examination [h]e asked me how many members there were in this union at our company I told him 30 He told me I needed ten percent of the signatures—or ten people to sign this petition to be presented On cross-examination, she testified, "Ten percent of 30 people is what he told me" On redirect, when Respond- ent's counsel asked, "Did he say you needed ten signa- tures or ten percent?" she replied, "Ten signatures—ten of 30 people" She did not ask the name of the person she talked to, he did not tell her, and she did not know it when she testified The other party to this conversation did not testify There is no evidence that Respondent knew about this conversation at any material time Thereafter, the following material was typed, by an in- dividual unidentified in the record, at the top of a sheet of paper DECERTIFICATION We the undersigned are rejecting Local Union 787 We no longer want them to represent us, the Hol- lander [sic] Manufacturing Inc , employee [sic] At that time, Respondent had in its employ 30 employees who were in the bargaining unit, had completed their probationary period, and were union members, and 4 probationary employees (as defined in the contract) who performed the same kinds of work as the nonprobation- ary employees in the unit but were not union members so far as the record shows Dugger asked at least 23 of the 30 union members to sign the petition Sixteen of them, mcludmg Dugger, did so on May 5 This solicita- tion activity occurred within earshot of the.probationary employees, none of whom offered or was requested to sign Late in the afternoon on May 5, Production Control Manager Thomas, admittedly a supervisor, saw this doc- ument, bearing the 16 signatures, on the desk of Produc- tion Foreman Marvin Kates, admittedly a supervisor Thomas thereupon informed David Echert, Respondent's executive vice president and admittedly a supervisor, that "there was a petition to decertify the Union" Then, Thomas telephoned Company Attorney Donald B Hordes and asked him how to proceed Thomas said that Respondent had a petition that had 16 signatures Hordes asked how many employees Respondent had Thomas re- plied that respondent had 30 "union employees So we didn't have a majority" C The Withdrawal of Recognition Pursuant to arrangements made for a first bargaining session, the parties met at Hordes' office on Monday, May 8, at approximately 3 p m Present for the Union were two union stewards, neither of whom had signed the petition, 2 and the union business agent Present for Respondent were, among others, Thomas, Echert, and Hordes Hordes advised the Union that based on Re- spondent's earlier receipt of the petition, it would no longer bargain with the Union Respondent expressed its 'AU dates hereafter are 1989 unless otherwise stated 'The record fails to show whether they had been asked to sign 468 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD belief that a majority of the bargaining unit employees, 16 out of 30, no longer wished to be represented by the Union In making the statement, Respondent was operat- ing under the assumption that probationary employees did not count towards the total number of bargaining unit employees in computing whether or not the Union had a majority 3 D Events After the Withdrawal of Recognition The workday of May 8 ended at 3 30 p m, about one- half hour after Respondent withdrew recognition Two of the probationary employees who worked that day did not show up for work on May 9 or at any time thereaf- ter On May 9, employee Ray Schneider asked to have his name deleted from the petition, and his name was crossed off that same day That same day, nonprobation- ary unit employee Pat Fannon added her name to the pe- tition The record fails to show whether the foregoing action by Schneider or Fannon took place before or after Respondent circulated to all its employees (inferentially, including the probationary employees), at lunchtime on May 9, the following handout bearing that date and signed by Echert (emphasis in original) To all of The Hollaender Mfg Co shop employees On Friday May 5, 1989, we received a petition signed by a majority of you stating that you no longer wanted the Machinists Union to represent you for the purpose of collective bargaining Based on this employee sentiment, we informed the union at our first bargaining session on Monday, May 8, 1989 that we were now unwilling to enter into negotiations for a new labor agreement We will, of course, continue to abide by the cur- rent umon contract which expires on May 31, 1989 After that time, however, we will no longer recog- nize the Machinists Union as your bargaining repre- sentative One immediate consequence of all of this is that effective June 1, 1989, we will no longer be deduct- ing union dues of $20 15 per month from your pay check Secondly, we will implement a new salary package for all of our machine shop employees which will be competitive with other similar com- panies in the Cincinnati metropolitan area, and which also recognizes your past and current contri- butions to The Hollaender Mfg Co YOU WILL NOT LOSE ANY OF THE SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFITS YOU CURRENTLY ENJOY We will provide further details concerning your salary and benefits in the next couple of weeks In the meantime, thanks for your continued pa- tience and support N Haro, B Shamel, and H Jones, all of whom were nonprobationary employees in the unit throughout May 1989 and none of whom had signed the decertification petition, were separated as of June 9, June 16, and 3 My findings under this heading are based on a stipulation between the parties August 4, respectively No new employees were hired between April 19, 1989, and the hearing on September 8, 1989 Of the 21 production and maintenance employees hired by Respondent between January 3, 1989, and the September 1989 hearing, about 14 (including the 3 who were separated in May 1989) failed to complete their 90- day probationary period E Analysis and Conclusions Absent unusual circumstances, there is an irrebuttable presumption that a union enjoys majority support during the first year following its certification On expiration of the certification year, the presumption of majority status continues but may be rebutted An employer who wishes to withdraw recognition after a year may lawfully do so (1) if he can show that on the date recognition was with- drawn the union did not in fact enjoy majority status, or (2) if he can show that its withdrawal of recognition was predicated on a good-faith and reasonably grounded doubt (based on objective considerations) of the union's majority status at that time Fall River Dyeing Corp v NLRB, 482 U S 27 (1987), NLRB v Flex Plastics, Inc , 726 F 2d 272, 275 (6th Cir 1984), Colfor, Inc , 282 NLRB 1173, 1175 (1987), enfd 838 F 2d 164 (6th Or 1988), Bennett Packaging Go, 285 NLRB 602, (1987), Station KKHI, 284 NLRB 1339 1340 (1987), enfd sub nom Buckley Broadcasting Corp of California, 891 F 2d 230 (9th Cir 1989) The relevant date at which to con- sider the bona fides of the employer's doubts is the date that recognition is withdrawn Flex Plastics, supra, 726 F 2d at 275 Respondent evinces semantic confusion in arguing (Br 7) (emphasis in original), "The issue in a loss-of-majority case is invariably the extent to which the majority of the employees have withdrawn their support from the union Indeed, the instant decertification peti- tion stated that the incumbent employees "no" longer want' the Union to represent them" Rather, the issue in such a case is whether, at the critical time, it can be shown that the union in fact failed to possess majority status For example, in the case at bar, Respondent's po- sition would not have been undercut by evidence that none of the signatones had ever wanted the Union to represent them, and that all of them had joined the Union solely because of the union-shop clause and for the purpose of keeping their jobs Respondent contends that its withdrawal of recogni- tion on May 8, 1989, was justified by the 16-signature pe- tition which it received on May 5 The General Counsel stipulated to the authenticity of the signatures on the pe- tition, and does not appear to question that it would jus- tify Respondent's withdrawal of recognition if the signa- tories constituted a majority of the employees in the cer- tified unit However, the General Counsel contends that this petition neither showed that a majority of the bar- gaining unit employees did not want to be represented by the Union, nor constituted sufficient objective basis for a reasonable doubt of the Union's majority status, on the ground that the petition was signed by only 16 em- ployees and the bargaining unit allegedly consisted of 34 HOLLAENDER MFG CO 469 employees-namely, 30 nonprobationary employees and 4 probationary employees - Respondent concedes (Br 6) that "probationary em- ployees generally are deemed eligible to vote in a repre- sentation election" See, e g, Johnson's Auto Spring Serv- ice, 221 NLRB 809 (1975), Rust Engineering Go, 195 NLRB 815, 816 (1972), and cases cited However, Re- spondent contends that such cases are irrelevant here, on the ground that the four probationary employees here in question were allegedly not in the bargaining unit Con- trary to Respondent, I find that they were in the bargain- ing unit Initially, I conclude that the probationary em- ployees were within the certified unit, which is described as "All production and maintenance employees" without any exclusions material here More specifically, it was admitted by Respondent's counsel that the probationary employees "are production and maintenance employees they do the \same kind of work that the regular em- ployees do", I infer that probationary production and maintenance employees work together with nonproba- tionary production and maintenance employees, under the same supervision, and under the same physical em- ployment conditions 4 Moreover, when the Union was certified in 1965, the probationary status of employees otherwise in the bargaining unit (as probationary produc- tion and maintenance employees would have been) would not have excluded them from the unit or rendered them ineligible to vote National Torch Tip Go, 107 NLRB 1271, 1272-1273 (1954), Sheffield Corp, 123 NLRB 1454, 1457-1458 (1959), Rust Engineering Go, supra, 195 NLRB at 816 (1972) Although Respondent points to the evidence that about 62 percent of the em- ployees hired in 1989 before the September 1989 hearing failed to complete their probationary period, the eligibil- ity of probationary employees does not turn on the pro- portion of such employees who, willingly or not, fail to continue in the employer's employ throughout the trial period National Torch, supra, 107 NLRB at 1273, John- son's Auto Spring, supra, 221 NLRB 809, Extral Corp, 111 NLRB 878, 880 (1955) Also, while two of the pro- bationary employees who worked on the day Respond- ent withdrew recognition (May 8, 1989) did not show up for work on the following day or at any time thereafter, this circumstance would not have rendered them ineligi- ble to vote either on May 8 or on May 5, 1989, the day the petition was signed by certain nonprobationary em- ployees and received by Respondent NLRB v General Tube Go, 331 F 2d 751 (6th Cir 1964), NLRB v Res- Care, Inc, 705 F 2d 1461, 1471-1472 (7th Cir 1983), St Elizabeth Hospital v NLRB, 708 F 2d 1436, 1444 (9th Or 1983), Computed Time Corp, 228 NLRB 1243, 1250- 1251 (1977), modified 587 F 2d 790 (5th Cir 1979), Per- sonal Products Corp, 114 NLRB 959, 961 (1955), see also Amoco Oil Corp, 289 NLRB 280 (1988) (holding eligible to vote in a decertification election an employee who gave preelection notice of his intention to retire postelec- tion, whose last active day of work preceded the elec- 4 Thomas credibly testified that Respondent makes safety equipment available to any employee, whether or not he is probationary The 1986- 1989 contract required Respondent to "continue its practice to furnish safety devices and protective clothing when the same may be required" non, but who was on vacation dunng the election) Moreover, the bargaining agreement confirms the inher- ent probability (Hill-Rom Go, 297 NLRB 351 (1989)) that the parties intended the contract unit to encompass the entire certified unit Thus, the contract itself defines the umt as "all employees within the bargaining unit as defined in the National Labor Relations Board in Case No 9-RC-6474," and otherwise tracks the language of the certification Probationary employees were entitled under the bargaining agreement to the "wage rates" specified therein, a condition which goes to the marrow of the employment relationship and as to which the Union could not lawfully bind either them or Respond- ent if the Union were not their bargaining representa- tive 5 Moreover, under the bargaining agreement a non- probationary employee's period of service included his probationary period for purposes of seniority and (per- haps) entitlement to vacation and holiday pay The fore- going evidence that probationary employees were in the contract unit outweighs the evidence relied on by Re- spondent as showing their exclusion-namely, the par- ties' practice of not requiring them to comply with the contractual union-security clause, and the contractual provision that they are not entitled to "any of the bene- fits of this contract other than the wage rates "6 In short, the only evidence offered by Respondent in support of its claim that the Union did not in fact enjoy majority status when Respondent withdrew recognition on May 8, 1989, is a petition signed by 16 employees in a unit of 34 A petition thus signed by fewer than one-half of the unit employees cannot be relied on as an expres- sion of majority disaffection from the Union sufficient to support Respondent's claim of a reasonable and good- faith doubt of majority status Superior Bakery, 294 NLRB 256 (1989) Nor can a claim of reasonable and good-faith doubt be supported by the legally erroneous belief of Production Control Manager Thomas that the four probationary employees were not in the bargaining unit, in view of Respondent's knowledge of all the facts which showed that such employees were indeed in the unit Pioneer Flour Mills, 174 NLRB 1202 (1969), enfd 427 F 2d 983 (5th Ctr 1970), cert denied 400 U S 942 (1970), Superior Bakery, supra at 256, 263-264 (Fafard) For the foregoing reasons, I find that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition from the Union on May 8, 1989 I regard as immaterial the testimony of employee Dugger about her conversation with a Board agent before the petition was circulated Because Respondent withdrew recognition before learning about this conversation, it could not have given rise to any equities in Respondent Further, I con- clude that neither did this conversation give rise to any relevant equities in Respondent's employees Dugger did not testify that the Board agent told her that Respondent 5 I need not and do not determine whether this provision entitled them to the contractually specified overtime payments for weekend and holi- day work and for more than 8 hours' work a day, to call-in or report pay, or to shift premiums See Infra fn 6 6 I note that Respondent does not appear to contend that nonproba- tionary employees with less than 6 months' service are excluded from the unit by virtue of the contract clause excluding them from vacation bene- fits 470 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would be compelled, or even that it could choose, to withdraw recognition if presented with a petition signed by a majority of the union membership Moreover, whether she was told that to present a "decertification petition" required 10 percent of the "members in the union" (as she testified at one point) or "ten signatures of 30 people" (as she eventually testified), she could not have supposed that the Utuon would be ousted by the signatures of 3 or even 10 employees among 30 union members Rather, she must have realized that a "decerti- fication petition" with so few signatures could not have displaced the Union without some intervening action by the Board CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees constitute a unit appropri- ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by Respondent at its Cincinnati, Ohio facili- ty including truck dnvers, building maintenance man, shipping and receivmg clerk and all other plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 4 At all times between December 13, 1965, and at least through May 8, 1989, inclusive, the Union, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, was the exclusive rep- resentative of the employees in the unit described in Conclusion of Law 3 with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment 5 Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition from the Union on May 8, 1989, as the representative of the employees in the unit described in Conclusion of Law 3 6 The unfair labor practices described in Conclusion of Law 5 affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Respondent contends that even if (as I have found) it violated the Act by withdrawing recognition from the Union on May 8, 1989, no bargaining order should be issued because, between that date and the hearing on September 8, 1989, all signers of the petition remained on the payroll, six nonsigners were separated, and no new bargaining unit employees were hired In consequence, at all times after May 8, 1989, one-half or more of the bar- gaining unit employees consisted of employees who had signed the petition, and, of the 28 unit employees on the date of the hearing, 16 had signed the petition 7 In thus relying on events which occurred after Respondent's un- lawful withdrawal of recognition, Respondent overlooks the fact that "the unlawful refusal of an employer to bar- gain collectively with its employees' chosen representa- tive disrupts the employees' morale, deters their organi- zational activities, and discourages their membership in unions for these reasons, a requirement that union membership be kept intact during delays incident to hearings would result in permitting employers to profit from their own refusal to bargain" Franks Bros Co v NLRB, 321 U S 702, 704-705 (1944), see also Fall River, supra, 482 U S at 49-50, NLRB v Katz, 369 U S 736, 748 fn 16 (1962), Sterling Processing Corp, 291 NLRB 208 (1988) Moreover, when advising the employees gen- erally that Respondent would not enter Into negotiations with the Union for a new labor agreement, Respondent's May 9 handout went on to say that in consequence, after the bargaining agreement expired the monthly dues of about $20 would no longer be deducted from employees' paychecks, that "we will implement a new salary pack- age which will be competitive with other similar companies in the metropolitan area, and which also recognizes your past and current contributions" to Re- spondent, that "YOU WILL NOT LOSE ANY OF THE SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFITS YOU CURRENTLY ENJOY," and that Respondent "thanks" the employees for their "continued patience and support" It cannot be presumed that none of the petition-signers would have undergone a change of heart if, instead of promising employees a "new salary package" (on expiration of the existing con- tract) as what Respondent termed a "consequence" of Respondent's unlawful refusal to enter into negotiations for a successor contract, Respondent had offered the Union that same "package" as part of such a contract Cf Katz, supra, 369 U S at 745 For the foregoing reasons, the customary remedial order will issue Indeed, if no such order is issued, it is difficult to conceive of any other remedy Apparently in anticipation of this difficulty, Respondent's brief relies on the Board's refusal to issue a remedial order in cases where the alleged unfair labor practice had been substan- tially remedied by the respondent's own conduct 8 How- ever, so far as the record shows, Respondent has taken no remedial action here Nor can an unlawful withdraw- al of recognition from a Board-certified union be fairly characterized as a "de minims" or "technical" violation of the Act—and, therefore, unworthy of a remedy—in view of the statutory purpose (Sec 1 of the Act) of "en- couragmg the practice and procedure of collective bar- gaining" No different result is mdicated by Burger Pits, Inc , 273 NLRB 1001 (1984), affd 785 F 2d 796 (9th Cir 1986), cited by Respondent In that case, the employer withdrew recognition, and effected unilateral changes in certain conditions of employment, after having received 7 This figure of 16 mcludes Fannon, who added her name to the peti- tion on May 9, but not Schneider, who deleted his name on the same day 8 Musicians Local 76 (Jimmy Wakely Show), 202 NLRB 620 (1973), Postal Service, 205 NLRB 624 (1973) Cf Auto Workers (Omm Spectra) v NLRB, 427 F 2d 1330, 1332-1334 (6th Cir 1970) HOLLAENDER MFG CO 471 a petition which bore at least the purported signatures of 70 percent of the unit employees, but about 4 weeks before the expiration of the current bargaining agree- ment Although issuing a cease-and-desist and make- whole order with respect to the period which the con- tract was still in effect, the Board declined to issue a pro- spective bargammg order, on the ground that the em- ployer could have lawfully announced on receipt of the petition an intention not to bargain with the union for a new contract, and on the expiration of the contract with- drawn recognition from the union and effected unilateral changes In the instant case, Respondent's statement to the Union that Respondent would no longer bargain with it was made at a time when the Union was not shown to possess minority status In addition, Respondent will be required to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and like or related conduct, and to post appropriate notices On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, I issue the following recommended° ORDER Respondent Hollaender Manufacturing Co Inc , Cin- cinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Local Lodge 789, District Lodge 34 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the following appropnate unit All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by Respondent at its Cincinnati, Ohio facili- ty including truck drivers, building maintenance man, shipping and receiving clerk and all other plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional 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, recognize and bargain with Local Lodge 789 as the exclusive representative of the employ- ees in the foregoing appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is 9 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 reached, embody the understanding in a signed agree- ment (b) Post at its facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 1 ° Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive 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 10 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words m the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" 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 WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with Local Lodge 789, District Lodge 34 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit 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 Local Lodge 789 and put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of employment for our employees in the bargaining unit All production and maintenance employees m g -ployed by us at our Cincinnati, Ohio facility includ- ing truck drivers, building maintenance man, ship- ping and receiving clerk and all other plant clerical employees, but excluding all office clerical employ- ees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act HOLLAENDER MANUFACTURING CO