Western Truck Services, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Western Truck Services, Inc. ad International As- sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 190, Local Lodge No. 1492. Cases 20-CA-14961 and 20- CA-15184 September 30, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PEiNELI.O On June 24, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Jay R. Pollack issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW Delete Conclusion of Law 3 and substitute the following: "3. The unit appropriate for collective bargain- ing is: "All full-time and regular part time journey- man and apprentice mechanics, machinists, welders, body and fender men, painters, com- bination men and radiator repair men, parts men, utility men, combination tiremen, lubrica- tion men, washer and steam cleaners employed by Respondent at its Cordelia, California facili- In sec Ill.A, fn 1, of his Decision, as well as in Conclusion of Law 3, in par. I(a) of his recommended Order, and in the notice to employees, the Administrative Law Judge made certain inadvertent errors in describ- ing the appropriate bargaining unit. The unit, admitted by Respondent in its answer to the complaint and stipulated by the parties at the hearing, is: All full-time and regular part time journeyman and apprentice me- chanics, machinists, welders, body and fender men, painters, combi- nation men and radiator repair men, parts men, utility men. combina- tion tiremen, lubrication men, washer and steam cleaners employed by Respx)ndent at its Cordelia, California facility; excluding office clerical employees, salespersons, guards. and supervisors as defined in the Act We will therefore amend Conclusion of Law 3. modify par. I(a) of the recommended Order, and issue a notice in lieu of that of the Administra- tive Law Judge to reflect an accurate description of the hargaining unit. We will also issue an Amended Remedy to make clear that interest on the moneys owed by Respondent to the health and welfare and pension funds is not to be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) Rather, under Merryweather Optical Compancy, 240 NLRB 1213 (1979). the Board leaves the determination of interest, if any. to the individual provisions of employee benefit fund agreements. We will modify par. 2(c) of the Administrative l.aH Judge's recommended Order accordingly. 252 NLRB No. 96 ty; excluding office clerical employees, sales- persons, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act." AMENDED REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall order Respondent to execute forthwith the collective-bargaining agreement containing the terms and conditions agreed upon by Respondent and the Union, and to give effect to that contract retroactively from October 1, 1979, making em- ployees whole for any losses they incurred as a result of Respondent's refusal to abide by the terms of such agreement.' Backpay is to be computed in a manner consistent with Board policy as stated in Ogle Protection Services, Inc.. and James L. Ogle, an Individual, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), with interest thereon as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).3 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Western Truck Services, Inc., Cordelia, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a): "(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union with respect to the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit described below z This involves making whole the appropriate health and welfare and pension funds for any losses suffered by Respondent's unlawful refusal to execute the agreed-upon contract and to give it retroactive effect Be- cause the provisions of employee benefit fund agreements are variable and complex, the Board does not provide at the adjudicatory stage of a proceeding for the addition of' interest at a fixed rate on unlawfully with- held fund payments We leave to the compliance stage the question whether Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the benefit funds in order to satisfy our "make-whole" remedy These additional amounts may be detemined, depending upon the circumstances of each case, by reference to provisions in the documents governing the funds at issue and, where there are no governing provisions, by evidence of any loss directly attributable to the unlawful withholding action, which might include the loss of return on investment of the portion of funds withheld, additional administrative costs, etc, but not collateral losses :' See, generally, lis Plumbing & Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962) Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay in accordance with thie forula set forth in his dissent in Olympic edical Corporation, 250) NIRB No 11 (198(1) 688 WESTERN TRUCK SERVICES by refusing to execute a copy of the agreed-upon contract with the Union. The appropriate collec- tive-bargaining unit is: "All full-time and regular part time journey- man and apprentice mechanics, machinists, welders, body and fender men, painters, com- bination men and radiator repair men, parts men, utility men, combination tiremen, lubrica- tion men, washer and steam cleaners employed by Respondent at its Cordelia, California facili- ty; excluding office clerical employees, sales- persons, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c): "(c) Make whole its employees for any loss of wages and other benefits which may have resulted from Respondent's unfair labor practices, and pay the appropriate interest on such amounts of money, as more fully described in the section of this Deci- sion and Order entitled "Amended Remedy." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain col- lectively, upon request, with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 190, Local Lodge No. 1492, with respect to the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit de- scribed below by refusing to execute a copy of the agreed-upon contract with the Union. The appropriate collective-bargaining unit is: All full-time and regular part time journey- man and apprentice mechanics, machinists, welders, body and fender men, painters, combination men and radiator repair men, parts men, utility men, combination tiremen, lubrication men, washer and steam cleaners employed by Respondent at its Cordelia, California facility; excluding office clerical employees, salespersons, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. WI, WILL NOT refuse to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of the employ- ees in the unit described above for purposes of collective bargaining. WE WIl. NOT interrogate employees con- cerning the Union's representative status. WiE wiL. NOT sponsor or circulate a petition to undermine the Union's representative status. WE WIll . NOT promise employees benefits in order to undermine the Union's representative status. Wl: Wl.l. NOT deal directly with employees in derogation of the Union's status as the ex- clusive bargaining representative. WE WILL.. NOT unilaterally discontinue pay- ments to the health and welfare and pension funds without first giving the Union an oppor- tunity to bargain over the matter. WE Wll.l. NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. WEi Wrl.l. forthwith execute a copy of the collective-bargaining agreement which con- tains the terms which were agreed to between Respondent and the Union. WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union by recognizing the Union as the collec- tive-bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit described above and by giving effect to the terms and conditions of the above-described agreement retroactive to October , 1979, as provided by the terms of said agreement. Wt WILL make whole all our employees in the appropriate unit described above for any loss of wages and benefits they incurred be- cause of our refusal to sign and comply with the terms and provisions of the aforesaid col- lective-bargaining agreement, and we will pay appropriate interest on those sums of money. WESTERN TRUCK SERVICES, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAY R. POII.ACK, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me in Sacramento, California, on April 24, 1980. Pursuant to a charge filed in Case 20- CA-14961, against Western Truck Services, Inc. (Re- spondent), by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 190, Local Lodge No. 1492 (Union), on November 8, 1979, the Acting Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against Respondent on December 17, 1979, alleging that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Pursuant to a charge filed in Case 20-CA-15184, against Respondent by the Union, on March 3. 1980, the Acting Regional 689 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABO)R RELATIONS BOARD Director issued a complaint against Respondent on April 3, 1980, alleging further violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. On April 3, 1980, the Acting Regional Director issued an order consolidating tha cases for hear- ing. The parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, and to file briefs. A post-trial brief was filed on behalf of the General Counsel. Based upon the entire record, and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol- lowing: FINI)IN(GS OF FACT AND CONCIUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is a California corporation engaged in Cordelia in the retail and wholesale sale, service, and repair of motor trucks. During calendar year 1978, Re- spondent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located out- side California. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is now, and at all times material herein, has been an employer engaged in and affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THI LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI.VII) The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE Ai.I GE) UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues Since January 1970, Respondent and the Union have been party to a series of collective-bargaining agreements covering the terms and conditions of employment of Re- spondent's employees in an agreed-upon unit. The last collective-bargaining agreement was in effect from Octo- ber 1, 1976, until September 30, 1979. By letter dated July 25, 1979, to Maurice Epps, Respondent's president, the union gave notice of its intention to open the exsiting agreement for the purpose of negotiating a succeeding agreement. Through a series of correspondence the par- ties agreed to meet on September 26. However, Norman Jonas, Respondent's consultant, postponed the meeting to October 11 and subsequently to October 15, 1979. A brief meeting was held at the Union's offices on October 15. A second meeting was scheduled for October 19, which meeting Jones rescheduled for October 23 but did The partics stipulated and I find the following contractual unit ap- propriate for he purposes of collective bargaining within the meaninlg of Sec. 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time journeymen and apprentice me- chanics, machinists, welders, body and fender men, painters, combi- nation men and radiator repair men, parts men, washer and steam cleaners employed by Respondent at its Cordelia, Califirnia facilily. excluding office clerical employees. salespersons. guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act not attend. It is stipulated that Respondent withdrew recognition from the Union during the period October 23 until December 5, 1979. It is also stipulated that Re- spondent and the Union resumed negotiations on Decem- ber 5, 1979, and reached agreement on the terms of a written collective-bargaining agreement on February 1, 1980; which agreement Respondent now refuses to ex- ecute. General Counsel alleges such conduct violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Within this factual framework, the General Counsel contends that Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(l), through its admitted agent, Gene Karpins, by in- terrogating an employee concerning the Union, circulat- ing a petition among its employees seeking to revoke the Union's representative status and promising employees unspecified benefits in order to undermine the Union's representative status. Further, the General Counsel con- tends that Karpins, on behalf of Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by directly dealing with employ- ees in derogation of the Union's representative status. Fi- nally, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by its admitted unilateral discontinuance of the health and welfare and pension benefit payments required by the expired 1976-79 collec- tive-bargaining agreement. Respondent does not deny the factual basis for the General Counsel contentions but denies the conclusion that it has violated the Act. B. Karpins' Conduct During August and October 1979 During mid-August 1979, Gene Karpins, in his office, asked employee Roland Couture whether "we really need the Union." 2 Couture answered "not particularly" and nothing further was said on the subject. On October 19, on another occasion while Couture was in Karpins' office, Karpins presented the employee with a typed petition stating: We shopmen do not need Machinists #1492 to ne- gotiate for us. We want a U.S. Government secret election so we can speak for ourselves. We want the election in a hurry. Karpins said "this is the way to go about getting rid of the Union" and Couture read and signed the petition. Karpins asked Couture not to mention the matter to the other employees. Later that same day, Karpins took the petition, already signed by Couture, to the employees' lunchroom. The petition was placed on the lunchtable where it was even- tually signed by the other three unit employees. The last employee to sign the petition, Ed Gates, was told by Karpins that "this is the way we're going to go about getting out of the Union." Gates then signed the petition. Shortly thereafter, Karpins told Gates that "if we went nonunion, the Company would write up a contract stat- ing what the employees would get and if the employees agreed they could sign it." Karpins said the contract 2 The facts in this section are ot in dispute and are based on the tcsti- mony f enmplo)ees Roland Couture. M E "Ed'" at and Joseph rad- shaw (Gener Karpins 'sas iotl called to testify at the hearing. 690 WESTERN RUCK SERVICES "might contain some better benefits but it would prob- ably be written up the same" as the union contract. The employee petition was submitted in support of a representation petition filed b Norman Jonas, Respond- ent's labor consultant, on November 1, 1979, in Case 20- RM-2280. The representation petition was mailed on Oc- tober 23, 1979, but bias sent to the wrong Regional Office. Contemporaneously with the filing of the peti- tion, as mentioned above, Respondent withdrew recogni- tion from the Union on October 23, 1979. Jones resumed negotiations with the Union on December 5, 1979, and the petition in Case 20-RM-2280 was dismissed by the Regional Director for Region 20 on January 8, 1980.: In the context of the opening of negotiations for a new contract, Karpins questioned an employee as to whether "we really need the Union." Karpins' purpose in adduc- ing information concerning employees' sympathies toward the Union was made clear by his subsequent unfair labor practices. Thus, Karpins sought to under- mine the Union by unlawfully sponsoring and circulating the employee petition. Further, Karpins promised that Respondent would draft a contract for employees which might contain some better benefits. By this conduct, Re- spondent successfully sought to undermine the Union's status as bargaining representative and violated the Act as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, I find that Karpins violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating employee Couture, promising benefits to employee Gates and by sponsoring and circulating the employee petition. Fur- ther, I find that Karpins violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by directly dealing with employee Gates by promising a contract to employees which "might contain better benefits" in order to undermine the Union's status as collective-bargaining representative. C. The Negotiations and the Alleged 8(a)(5) Violations As mentioned above, during Karpins' campaign to un- dermine the Union, Jones delayed meeting with the Union until October 15, 1979. Jones postponed and later failed to appear for a second negotiation meeting. There- after, from October 23 until December 5, 1979. Respond- ent withdrew recognition from the Union and refused to bargain. On October 26. Bud Willis, union agent, learned for the first time that Respondent had ceased making payments to the health and welfare and pension funds, required by the recently expired bargaining agreement. 4 Willis attempted unsuccessfully to contact Jones. On De- cember 5, 1979, Jones called Willis and resumed negotia- tions. Jones and Willis met at the Union's offices on Decem- ber 10, 1979 and agreed to first negotiate on language and later on economic issues. It was further agreed that the economic provisions would be subject to approval by Respondent's president. With these ground rules the par- 3 The dismissal o he petition was based on the ground that the com- plaint in Case 20-CA-14961 had issued alleging that Respondent had vio- lated Sec. (a)(5) and (1) of he Act and. thus. no question concerning representation could be raised. I The parties stipulated hat effective October 1,. 1979. Respondent ceased making payments to the funds and that the Union had no prior notice of such change ties reached agreement on most provisions of the con- tract. Thereafter. on January 8 1980. Jones sent Willis a letter setting forth the Respondent's "final offer" and stating that "it is agreed that the Union would take back this final Company offer to the employees" and give Re- spondent a written answer no later than January 18.5 On February 1. Willis called Jones and agreed to Respond- ent's "final offer" as the collective-bargaining agreement between the parties. Thereafter, on February 1, Willis sent Jones a letter accepting Respondent's offer and stat- ing that a typed agreement would soon be forwarded to Jones. On February 13. 1980, Willis sent Jones a typed copy of the contract for signature. On February 19 Jones wrote Willis refusing to sign "any agreement with the Union until such time that the Union proves they repre- sent a majority in the Unit." Respondent does not contest the accuracy of the docu- ment it is requested to sign. It apparently argues that the Union no longer represents the unit employees based on a letter sent to the Union signed on January 29, 1980, by all fi:ve unit employees stating:6 We no longer wish to be represented by Machinists Union Local No. 1492. Effective immediately, we will be representing ourselves, hereafter. As found above, Respondent engaged in various unfair labor practices designed to undermine the Union's major- ity statue. The defense that the Union no longer enjoys majority status can only be raised in a context free of unfair labor practices. Chez Monez Ford, 241 NLRB 349 (1979); Guerdon Industries. Inc., Armor Mobile Homes Di- vision, 218 NLRB 658, 659 (1975); Celanese Corporation of .4merica, 95 NLRB 664 (1951). See also Eastern Washing- ton Distributing Company, Inc., 216 NLRB 1149, 1152-53 (1975), King Radio Corporation, Inc., 208 NLRB 578, 582 (1974); C & C Plywood Corporation and Veneers, Inc., 163 NLRB 1022, 1023 (1967). The theory being that the em- ployer's misconduct may well have induced the union's loss of majority. rank Bros. Company v. NL.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, 705-706 (1944). Respondent committed viola- tions of the Act which disparaged the Union in the eyes of its employees and hence cannot rely on such unfair labor practices to withdraw recognition from the Union. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it withdrew recognition from the Union during the period October 23 to Decem- ber 5. 1979, and when it again withdrew recognition from the Union on February 13, 1980. Respondent, apparently, further contends that it is not obligated to execute the admittedly agreed-upon contract on the ground that the employees have never ratified the contract. While Jones argued at the hearing that the con- tract was conditioned upon ratification by the employees, he did not take the stand to testify. The only evidence s Willis credibly testified that upon receipt of this letter he called Jones and left a message oir Jones' recording device vehemently denying such an agreement Willis credibly denied that he agreed It such conditions On January 3, 1980. the employees had rejected the Respondent', hel existing proposals T Ihree of these fise employees had signed the pettion sponsored aid circulated by Karpins on ()ctober 19. 1979 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on this point was offered by Willis who credibly denied that ratification by the employees was ever discussed. 7 Thus, there is no requiremant that the Union seek ratifi- cation of the agreement reached as a reault of negotia- tions. 8 In sum, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and () of the Act when it discontinued payments to the health and welfare and pension funds without first giving the Union an opportunity to bargain over the matter.9 Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) when it unlawful- ly withdrew recognition from the Union in October 1979, and again in February 1980. Finally, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it unlawfully re- fused to sign the agreed-upon collective-bargaining con- tract. l 0 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Western Truck Services, Inc., is an em- ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Association of Machinists and Aero- space Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 190, Local Lodge No. 1492, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. The unit appropriate for collective bargaining is: All full-time and regular part-time journeymen and apprentice mechanics, machinists, welders, body and fendermen, painters, combination men and radi- ator repair men, parts men, washer and steam clean- ers employed by Respondent at its Cordelia, Cali- fornia facility; excluding office clerical employees, salespersons, guards,and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. At all times material, the Union has been the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the above-described unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By unilaterally discontinuing payments to the health and welfare and pension funds as required by its collec- tive-bargaining agreement that expired September 30, 1979, by directly dealing with employees in derogation of the Union's status as bargaining representative; by withdrawing recognition of the Union on October 23, 1979, and again on February 13, 1980; and by refusing to sign the agreed-upon collective-bargaining contract, Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. By interrogating an employee concerning the Union's representative status; by sponsoring and circulat- ing a petition to undermine the Union's representative status; and by promising benefits in order to undermine the Union's representative status, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7 Willis further testified hat based on employee statements "to get the best you can" and Jones' statement that Respondent had made its "final offer." he acceptad the contract. " See North Country Motors, Ld. 146 NLRB 671, 674 (1964). • .'VL.R.B. v. Sky WolfSales, 470 F.2d 827, 830 (9th Cir. 1972), enfd 189 NLRB 933 (1971); Harold Wt Hinson d/b/a Hen House Marker No. 3, 175 NLRB 596 (1969), enfd. 428 F.2d 133 (8th Cir. 1970) to See H. J. Heinz Company v. N L.R. .. 311 U S. 514, 516 (1941). 7. The unfair labor practices of Respondent, as de- scribed above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THI Ri-MIIE)Y Having found that Respondent Western Truck Serv- ices, Inc., has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. Since I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to sign the agreed-upon collective-bargaining contract, Respondent shall be or- dered to execute forthwith the contract which contains the terms to which Respondent and the Union previously agreed, and to give effect to the terms and provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement retroactively to Oc- tober 1, 1979, as provided by the terms of the agreement. I shall also recommend that Respondent make whole its unit employees for any loss of wages and or benefits they may have suffered by the unlawful refusal to apply the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement to them." Interest shall be computed and paid in the manner pre- scribed in Florida Steel Corporation , 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER' 2 The Respondent, Western Truck Services, Inc., Cor- delia, California and its supervisors, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Union with respect to the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment of the employees in the appropriate unit de- scribed below by refusing to execute a copy or the agreed-upon contract with the Union. The appropriate collective-bargaining unit is: All full-time and regular part-time journeymen and apprentice mechanics, machinists, welders, body and fendermen, painters, combination men and radi- ator repair men, parts men, washer and steam clean- ers employed by Respondent at its Cordelia, Cali- fornia facility; excluding office clerical employees, I The unilateral discontinuance of the health and welfare and pension payments will not be the subject of an independent affirmative provision as such violation will be remedied by the make whole remedy, which, by the terms of the agreed upon collective bargaining contract is retroactive to October 1, 1979, 12 All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 692 WESTERN TRUCK SERVICES sales persons, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing to recognize the Union as the exclusive representative for purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the unit described above. (c) Interrogating employees concerning the Union's representative status. (d) Sponsoring and circulating a petition to undermine the Union's representative status. (e) Promising employees benefits in order to under- mine the union representative status. (f) Dealing directly with employees in derogation of the Union's status as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive. (g) Unilatarally discontinuing payments to the health and welfare and pension funds without first giving the Union an opportunity to bargain over the matter, (h) In any like or relatad manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights granted to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Forthwith execute a copy of the collective-bargain- ing agreement which contains the terms which were agreed to between Respondent and the Union. (b) Bargain collectively with the Union by recognizing the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit de- scribed above and by giving effect to the terms and con- ditions of the above-described agreement retroactive to October 1, 1979, as provided by the terms of said agree- ment. (c) Make whole its employees for any loss of wages and other benefits which may have resulted from Re- spondent's unfair labor practices, and pay the appropriate interest on such amounts of money, as more fully de- scribed in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay and other benefits due under the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its facility in Cordelia, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted immdiately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. :' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appealk, the ords in the notice reading "Posted hy Order of the National Labotr Relations Board" shall read "Posted P'ur- suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 693