Harbor Cartage

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 927 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

HARBOR CARTAGE
Harbor Cartage, Inc. and Local 299, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case 7-CA-
19607
11 April 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
On 28 January 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich 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 as modified and to adopt the recom-
mended Order.
The judge found Respondent Harbor Cartage,
Inc. (Harbor or the Respondent) to be a successor
to Seaport Transportation Company (Seaport);
that, as Seaport's successor, the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unlawfully
refusing to recognize and bargain with Teamsters
Local 299, the bargaining representative of Sea-
port's drivers; and that the Respondent entered into
an unlawful prehire agreement with Teamsters
Local 124 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act. The Respondent excepts, contending that
it was obligated to enter into the collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Local 124, and did not act
unlawfully by doing so; that the facts support a
finding that it has a fundamentally different type of
business operation from that of Seaport; that, at all
times relevant, Local 299 has not represented a ma-
jority of Harbor's employees; and that, assuming
arguendo Harbor is a successor to Seaport, it
should not be obligated to reimburse employees for
losses they may have suffered as a result of the al-
leged unfair labor practices. We find no merit in
the Respondent's exceptions with respect to the
violation findings made by the judge, which we
adopt for the reasons set forth below. However,
we find merit in the Respondent's contention that
its backpay liability is limited to the reimbursement
of any dues deducted from employee wages pursu-
ant to its unlawful prehire agreement with Local
124.
According to the Respondent, the nature of its
operation differs so substantially from that of Sea-
port that it cannot be found to be engaging in the
same employing industry. We disagree. Harbor is
owned by Andrew Paul Mesarosh, who was em-
269 NLRB No. 152
ployed as Seaport's dispatcher at the time that
company closed its freight transporting operation
on 6 March 1981. When Harbor opened for busi-
ness on 9 March 1981, at the same address and
with the same telephone number Seaport had, it
employed five drivers, three of whom were driving
for Seaport when it closed;' one former Seaport
clerical; and Seaport's salesman who brought with
him the customers he had serviced while working
for Seaport. Harbor purchased blank freight bills
containing Seaport's name for about $800 and used
these supplies by attaching labels with Harbor's
name over that of Seaport.2
The most striking difference between the oper-
ation of Seaport and that of Harbor is that Seaport
owned and maintained its own trucking equip-
ment,3 while Harbor leases the equipment neces-
sary to conduct its freight hauling operations.4
This difference has not, however, resulted in any
change in the kind of work performed by unit driv-
ers or the type of services Harbor provides to cus-
tomers. Thus, at the time that Seaport closed, it
was engaged primarily in the transportation of pig-
gyback trailers and containers and, with the excep-
tion of about one truckload a day, had gotten out
of the business of handling less than truckload
(LTL) freight. 5 Similarly, Harbor is in the business
of transporting piggyback trailers and containers,
and transports less than a truckload a day of LTL
freight. Further, Harbor does business with all of
the major shipping agents and container brokers
used by Seaport, and transports many of the same
commodities transported by Seaport.6
I Seaport's drivers were represented by Local 299. The parties stipulat-
ed that the appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers employed by the Respond-
ent at its Detroit offices, but excluding guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act and all other employees.
The Respondent excepts to the judge's reliance on this fact, contend-
ing that freight bills are common throughout the industry and that all
motor carriers are required by law to use them. We find it significant
only to the extent that the freight bills represent the only Seaport sup-
plies on record as being available for purchase by Harbor.
s Seaport owned about 12 to 15 tractors, 2 vans, and 6 to 8 trailers.
When Seaport ceased operations, it sold its remaining equipment to "vari-
ous people [and] brokers," not including Harbor.
' Given this difference it is not surprising that Harbor leased less office
space than Seaport, leased neither dock space nor garage space as did
Seaport, and employed no mechanics. (Seaport had employed two me-
chanics who were not in the bargaining unit.)
I According to the unrefuted testimony of Seaport's president, Seaport
ceased handling LTL freight, which was not profitable, about 6 to 8
months before closing in an effort to save the Company.
e The evidence contains a customer list for both operations showing
162 customers for Seaport, and 218 customers for Harbor. These lists in-
clude agents and brokers, as well as producers, and have 44 names in
common. The record reflects that Harbor carries for a wider variety of
producers than did Seaport, in part because Alliance Shippers Associa-
tion, a shipper common to both, has itself expanded operations consider-
ably since the time it serviced Seaport. The customer lists do not indicate
what volume of business is represented by any one producer.
927
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As for operating authority, Harbor purchased, 7
and had transferred to it through application to the
appropriate regulatory authorities, Seaport's com-
mercial zone authority issued by the Michigan
Public Service Commission, and Seaport's common
carrier authority and one contract carrier permit,
both issued by the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion. Like Seaport, Harbor has a carrier bond and a
custom bond to haul bonded freight.8
On these facts, we find, as did the judge, that
Harbor conducts substantially the same business as
Seaport, operating from the latter's former prem-
ises pursuant to the same regulatory authorities,
using the same type of trucking equipment, and
hauling the same type of freight for substantially
the same customers.9
We further find, as did the judge, that the Re-
spondent employed a majority of Seaport's drivers
to perform its hauling work. When the Respondent
commenced operations on 9 March 1981, it had in
its employ five drivers, three of whom were driv-
ing for Seaport when it ceased operations on 6
March 1981. By letter dated 28 July 1981, Local
299, the bargaining representative of Seaport's
drivers, demanded that Harbor, as successor to
Seaport, negotiate with Local 299 regarding the
wages, hours, and working conditions of the unit
employees. On that date, Harbor still employed
five drivers, including the three former Seaport
drivers hired in March.
The Respondent contends, however, that when it
hired its sixth driver in September 1981, and
reached full complement, a bare 50 percent of its
unit employees had worked for Seaport, and that it
is therefore not obligated to bargain with Local
299 as successor to Seaport. We find no merit to
that contention. When Local 299 made its bargain-
ing demand, the Respondent had had a stable and
representative driver complement for over 4
months, a majority of whom had previously
worked for Seaport. We therefore find that the Re-
spondent had essentially completed its hiring by
the time Local 299 made its first bargaining
demand, and that, consequently, Local 299 then
represented a majority of the Respondent's drivers.
Accordingly we find that the Respondent is a
successor to Seaport, that the Respondent was obli-
7 The record establishes that Harbor entered into a contract to pur-
chase these authorities from Seaport at the price of S7500.
There is uncontradicted evidence that the paperwork for the bonded
freight Harbor transported during its first month in operation (up to 20
truckloads per day) had Seaport Transportation written on it. Also, for
the first few weeks of Harbor's operation, at least one of Harbor's drivers
who had worked for Seaport used his identification card, issued by the
Bureau of Customs with Seaport's name on it, for personal identification
when picking up, and signing for bonded freight on behalf of Harbor.
' See Premium Foods, 260 NLRB 708, 714 (1981), enfd. 709 F.2d 623
(9th Cir. 1983).
gated to bargain with Local 299 on and after its
bargaining request of 28 July 1981, and that by fail-
ing and refusing to do so the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. l °
We agree with the judge that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by en-
tering into a prehire agreement with Local 124 on
1 March 1981. However, we do not find that by
doing so the Respondent incurred any backpay li-
ability beyond that which is required to reimburse
its drivers for the membership dues to Local 124
which it unlawfully withheld from their pay. A
successor is ordinarily free to set the initial terms
on which it will hire the employees of a predeces-
sor l l and is under no duty to bargain over initial
employment terms where its offer of different
terms is simultaneous with its expression of intent
to retain its predecessor's employees.' 2 Here, the
Respondent announced when it hired the three
former Seaport drivers that their terms and condi-
tions of employment would be those appearing in
the contract which the Respondent had signed
with Local 124, and therefore different from those
which the drivers had enjoyed at Seaport. Al-
though the Respondent could not lawfully impose
Local 124 on the unit employees as their bargain-
ing representative, we find it immaterial that the
terms offered and accepted by the unit employees
at the time of their hire were set pursuant to an un-
lawful agreement with that union. The unit em-
ployees agreed to those terms as a condition of ac-
cepting employment with the Respondent. Had the
Respondent offered such terms or similar ones
without regard to an agreement with Local 124, it
would have been free to do so under the principles
of Burns and its progeny.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent was
under no duty to bargain with Local 299 regarding
the drivers' initial employment terms and that it
has incurred no backpay liability as a result of
having hired Seaport's drivers under changed
terms and conditions of employment.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for paragraph 7 of the
judge's Conclusions of Law.
"By refusing, since on or about July 28, 1981, to
bargain collectively with Local 299 as the exclu-
sive bargaining agent of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act."
'O NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 280 (1972).
X i See Burns, supra at 294, 295-296.
" See Starco Farms Market, 237 NLRB 373 (1978).
928
HARBOR CARTAGE
AMENDED REMEDY
We adopt the recommended remedy of the judge
except that the Respondent's backpay liability shall
be limited to the reimbursement to employees of
the dues to Local 124 that it deducted from their
wages pursuant to its unlawful prehire agreement
with that Union, plus interest to be computed in
the manner set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977); see generally Isis Plumbing Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Harbor
Cartage, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge. The
charge herein was filed by Local 299, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, herein referred to as Local 299,
on July 28, 1981, and was served on Harbor Cartage,
Inc., the Respondent herein, on or about July 29, 1981.
A complaint and notice of hearing was issued on Sep-
tember 2, 1981. An amended complaint and notice of
hearing was issued on October 9, 1981. Among other
things, the amended complaint alleges that the Respond-
ent is a successor in law to Seaport Transportation Com-
pany and that the Respondent, after the successorship,
prematurely recognized Local 124, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein referred to as Local 124, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent's employees, and executed a collective-bargaining
agreement with said Union, whereas the Respondent was
obligated to recognize its predecessor's union, Local 299,
as its employees' exclusive bargaining agent, all in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein referred to as the Act.
The Respondent filed timely answers denying that it
had engaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged.
The case came on for hearing in Detroit, Michigan, on
July 22 and October 4, 1982. Each party was afforded a
full opportunity to be heard, to call, examine, and cross-
examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, to
submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and to file briefs. All briefs have been carefully consid-
ered.
On the entire record in this case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS
THEREFOR
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing
by virtue of, the laws of the State of Michigan.
At all times material herein, the Respondent has main-
tained its office and place of business at 312 West End in
the city of Detroit and State of Michigan, herein called
the Detroit office. The Respondent is, and has been at all
times material herein, engaged in the transportation of
railroad piggybacks and containers. The Respondent's
office located in Detroit, Michigan, is the only facility
involved in this proceeding.
Since it commenced business on or about March 9,
1981, which period is representative of its operations
during all times material herein, the Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, performed
services valued in excess of $200,000, of which services
valued in excess of $50,000 were performed in, and for
various enterprises located in, States other than the State
of Michigan.
The Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma-
terial herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 299 and Local 124 are, and have been at all
times material herein, labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Seaport Transportation Company, herein referred to as
Seaport, was in the business of transporting freight local-
ly by motor vehicle. It terminated its business on March
6, 1981. As explained by Stephen Litt, sole shareholder
of Seaport and its president, "[W]e ran out of money,
and the IRS came down on us, and it was a matter of
either closing or have them foreclose on everything we
had." At the time of Seaport's closing the officers were
Litt, president; Litt's son, Mike, vice president; and Litt's
daughter-in-law, Barbara, secretary-treasurer. Mike and
Barbara Litt supervised the day-to-day operations. The
employee complement was composed of "managerial,
clerical . . . drivers and dock personnel." Five drivers
were actively employed on March 6, 1981; namely, Ran-
dall Phillips, John Williamson, Douglas Bell, David
Wheat, and Darrell Constantini. Five additional drivers
had been on layoff for the last 5 months: Robert Steel,
Steven Mickel, Kenneth McKay, David Constantini, and
Richard Stinson. The clerical employees were Denise
Kozanski and Kim Trackwell. Howard Barton was the
salesperson and Andrew Paul Mesarosh, the present
owner of the Respondent, was the dispatcher. The driv-
ers and dock personnel were represented by Local 299.
A labor agreement was in existence, which agreement
expired in March 1982.
"Normally" Seaport used "regular trailers, 20 or 40
feet," either "marine containers or regular conventional
vans," for transporting freight. Seaport held "commercial
929
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
zone authority which is a Michigan Public Service Com-
mission authority," "contract authority on the Borg
Warner move," and "common carrier authority to move
from the eastern part of Michigan to Chicago and
return." Seaport also possessed a "carrier's bond" and "a
custom house license." Seaport owned "between 12 and
15 tractors, probably about two vans, and probably six to
eight trailers." When Seaport ceased operations its re-
maining equipment was "sold off" to "[v]arious people,
brokers," and "[m]ost of [the] trucks were pretty ancient
and [in] pretty bad shape." Alex J. Miller, esquire, was
Seaport's lawyer.
Harbor Cartage, Inc., was operated as a trucking com-
pany by Howard Barton, its sole stockholder, from the
spring of 1966 to December 1, 1978, at which time it dis-
continued its trucking operations. At the time of Har-
bor's closing two truckdrivers were in its employ. Al-
though Harbor became a nonoperating company on De-
cember 1, 1978, the corporation apparently was not dis-
solved but continued its corporate existence. Thereafter,
Harbor remained dormant until all of its outstanding
shares of stock were purchased by Andrew Paul Mesar-
osh from Barton on March 2, 1981, at which time Mesar-
osh reactivated the corporation. Harbor again com-
menced a local freight hauling business on March 9,
1981.
After Barton discontinued Harbor's trucking oper-
ations he went to work for Glencon Trucking as a sales-
person until 1979 when he commenced employment with
Seaport also as a salesperson. When Seaport ceased busi-
ness Barton joined Harbor where he again was employed
as a salesperson. To each of these employers Barton
brought customers whom he had serviced while working
for a prior employer. Thus, those customers whom he
had serviced while working for Seaport became the cus-
tomers of Harbor under the management of Mesarosh.
While Barton operated Harbor he first carried a con-
tract with Local 299 (1966-1976), but when Local 124
was spun off from Local 299 in 1976 Harbor "was trans-
ferred over to 124 and the existing contract carried on."
The contract was not renegotiated during the period
Harbor was a nonoperating company.
Mesarosh was aware of Local 299's labor agreement
with Seaport at the time Seaport ceased its trucking op-
erations. Mesarosh had also learned from Barton that
Harbor had had a labor agreement with Local 124. Ac-
cording to Mesarosh, "because of what Howard Barton
had told [him], that he had a pre-existing contract," Me-
sarosh contacted Howard Proctor, president of Local
124, with whom he signed a labor agreement on March
1, 1981. Thereafter, Harbor deducted dues for Local 124.
When Harbor commenced operating on March 9,
1981, it had hired five drivers; three, Randall Phillips,
Douglas Bell, and John Williamson, had worked for Sea-
port. Howard Barton was hired as a salesperson and Kim
Trackwell was employed in the office. Both employees
had worked at Seaport. Mesarosh, Seaport's dispatcher
and Litt's brother-in-law, became the manager-owner of
Harbor. Mesarosh explained the hiring of the drivers as
follows: "It was on Saturday. It would be March 7th.
Those that were interested and heard I was hiring came
in on Saturday prior to my day of opening up. I ex-
plained the contract to them, that their health and wel-
fare and their pension would be paid, and how they
would be paid." Mesarosh admitted that he "told [the
drivers] that in fact they were to become union members
of Local 124."
While Harbor leases its trucks and has not purchased
any of Seaport's moving equipment, it operates the same
kind of moving equipment, tractor-trailers, which it uses,
as did Seaport, for hauling containers and piggybacks. A
substantial number of Harbor's customers are the same
customers Seaport had serviced.' Harbor uses the same
telephone number as Seaport did. Harbor purchased Sea-
port's blank freight bills for "around $800.00." Seaport's
"ICC authorities" were also sold to Harbor and its
Michigan Public Service Commission certificate was
transferred to Harbor.
Alliance Shippers subleases "approximately four hun-
dred square feet of space" to Harbor which is the same
space as was leased to Seaport by Alliance.
Harbor operates under Seaport's custom carrier's
bond, which had been assigned to it by Seaport.
The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers em-
ployed by the Respondent at its Detroit office, but
excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
As is evident from the foregoing facts, the advent of
the Respondent as a revitalized operating company ef-
fected no change in the employing industry forming an
appropriate bargaining unit for which Local 299 had
been designated and recognized as the collective-bargain-
ing agent and for which unit a labor agreement had been
negotiated and executed by Seaport and Local 299. Since
Harbor launched its trucking business in March 1981, it
has performed substantially the same operations; serviced
substantially the same customers; utilized the same
moving equipment (tractor-trailers); hauled the same
kind of freight (containers and piggybacks); occupied the
same premises; used the identical telephone number,
freight bills, certificate, and custom carrier's bond; and
utilized a majority of the same employees in identical job
classifications as did Seaport. Hence, Harbor is a succes-
sor employer to Seaport and is bound to bargain with
the union, Local 299, which was the collective-bargain-
ing agent of Seaport's employees. NLRB v. Burns Securi-
ty Services, 406 U.S. 272 (1972). It is immaterial whether
Harbor during its existence as an operating company
prior to 1978 had a labor agreement with Local 124
since Harbor's "obligation to bargain with the Union
over terms and conditions of employment stem[s] from
its hiring of [Seaport's] employees." NLRB v. Burns Se-
curity Services, supra. By refusing to bargain with Local
299 on request in the appropriate unit set forth above,
I Mesarosh identified 20 former customers of Seaport with which
Harbor now conducts business. Driver Phillips identified an additional 15
customers. Alliance Shippers Association, a liaison operation, continues
to place business with Harbor as do the major shipping agents and bro-
kers who dealt with Seaport; e.g., J. V. Carr, Mardell Shipping, Hub
City, and W. R. Filben.
930
HARBOR CARTAGE
Harbor, the Respondent herein, violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
Additionally, by entering into a prehire agreement
with Local 124 and deducting dues for Local 124 from
employees hired when Local 124 did not represent an
uncoerced majority of the Respondent's employees, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
Maritime Union v. NLRB, 683 F.2d 305 (9th Cir. 1982).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Harbor Cartage, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
2. Local 299 and Local 124 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following unit constitutes an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers em-
ployed by the Respondent at its Detroit office, but
excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
4. Beginning in or about 1975, Local 299 represented
all driver employees and warehousemen employed by
Seaport Transportation Company until that Company
ceased doing business on March 6, 1981.
5. On or about March 7, 1981, the Respondent hired
five truckdrivers, a majority of whom were formerly em-
ployed as truckdrivers by Seaport, and on March 9,
1981, it commenced business as a successor in law to
Seaport.
6. By prematurely recognizing and executing a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Local 124 on or about
March 1, 1981, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
7. By refusing since on or about March 9, 1981, to bar-
gain collectively with Local 299 as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent of the employees in the appropriate unit, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It is recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain af-
firmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act.
It is further recommended that the Respondent with-
draw recognition from Local 124 as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its employees; cease giving
effect to the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Respondent and Local 124; and recognize and bargain
with Local 299 as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the above-described appropriate unit
and, if an agreement is reached, reduce it to writing and
sign it. Employees shall be reimbursed for any losses re-
sulting from the Respondent's unfair labor practices.
Any sums of money due the employees shall bear inter-
est to be computed in the manner set forth in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977) (see generally Isis
Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record in this proceeding, I issue the fol-
lowing recommended 3
ORDER
The Respondent, Harbor Cartage, Inc., Detroit, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Rendering unlawful support to Local 124, or any
other labor organization.
(b) Maintaining, enforcing, or giving effect to any col-
lective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent
and Local 124.
(c) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 299 as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit described below.
(d) 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 National
Labor Relations Act to engage in self-organization; to
form, join, or assist any union; to bargain collectively
through a representative of their own choosing; to act
together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; or to refrain from any or all of these things.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw recognition from Local 124 as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of its employees in the ap-
propriate unit described below.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 299
and its designated agents, as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit, with respect to
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody same in a written, signed
agreement. The appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers em-
ployed by the Respondent at its Detroit office, but
excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
(c) Reimburse its employees for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of the Respondent's unfair labor
practices in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
2 As requested by the General Counsel employee losses, if any which
may have been occasioned by the Respondent's unfair labor practices are
left for the compliance stage of this proceeding.
s 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.
931
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its Detroit, Michigan facility copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, 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 said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
4 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 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
WE WILL NOT render unlawful support to Local 124,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or give effect to any
collective-bargaining agreement between our Company
and Local 124, and WE WILL withdraw our recognition
of Local 124 as the exclusive bargaining representative
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collec-
tively with Local 299, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive representative of our employ-
ees in the appropriate unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act to
engage in self-organization; to form, join, or assist any
labor organization; to bargain collectively through a bar-
gaining agent chosen by them; to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with Local
299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and its designat-
ed agents, as the exclusive representative of our employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit, with respect to
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, WE WILL embody it in a signed
agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers em-
ployed by us at our Detroit office, but excluding
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all
other employees.
WE WILL reimburse our employees, with interest, for
any losses they may have suffered as a result of our
unfair labor practices.
HARBOR CARTAGE, INC.
932