Raynal Plymouth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 527 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

RAYNAL PLYMOUTH CO.
Raynal Plymouth Company and Automotive
Salesmen 's Association ( A.S.A.), affiliated with
Seafarers' International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-6677
April 24, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On December 6, 1968 , Trial Examiner Harry R.
Hinkes issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and recommending that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action , as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner ' s Decision . Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three- member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the
findings ,' conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
On the basis of the entire record in this case, we
agree with the Trial Examiner ' s findings that the
Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in
good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. However , the Trial Examiner in his
Conclusions of Law and Remedy has dated the
Respondent ' s refusal-to-bargain violation as
commencing on and after April 5, 1967, the date of
the Respondent ' s first refusal to meet . We hereby
find that such violation occurred on and after
October 5, 1967, the date alleged in the complaint
and the earliest permitted by Section 10(b) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Automotive Salesmen's Association affiliated
with Seafarers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
The Respondent apparently contends that so called "objections" in the
related representation proceeding , Case 7-RC-7518, were never ruled upon
by the Board . However, the record reveals that the referred to "objections"
were actually a Request for Review , filed on March 9, 1967, of the
Regional Director 's Supplemental Decision on Objections and Challenges
and Order, which issued on March 2 , 1967. The Request for Review was
denied by the Board on April 27, 1967.
527
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Raynal Plymouth Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. All new- and used-car and truck salesmen at
the Respondent's place of business; excluding office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. By virtue of a Board certification dated March
30, 1967, and an amendment of certification dated
February 9, 1968, the above-named labor
organization has been, and now is, the certified and
exclusive representative of all the employees in the
appropriate unit described above for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing, on and after October 5, 1967, to
bargain in good faith with the Union concerning
wages, rates of pay, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices it will be ordered that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
By refusing to bargain for practically all of the
Union's first year as certified bargaining
representative, the Respondent deprived its
employees of representation by a bargaining agency
possessing the status and enjoying the presumptions
attaching to such organization for the period of a
year following certification. To place the
Respondent and the Union in as nearly the same
situation as possible to that which would have
existed had the Respondent honored the Board's
certification of election, it will be ordered that upon
resumption of bargaining and for 1 year thereafter
the Union be regarded as if the initial year of
certification had not yet expired. Burnett
Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419.
It will be ordered that upon request the
Respondent bargain with the Union concerning rates
of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, reduce it to writing and sign it.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
175 NLRB No. 94
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Raynal
Plymouth Company, Detroit, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondent 's answer admits and
I find that the ASA is and has been at all times material
herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HARRY R HINKES, Trial Examiner: The complaint
herein was issued on July 29, 1968, pursuant to an
original charge filed by Automotive Salesmen's
Association (A.S.A.) affiliated with SIUNA, AFL-CIO,
herein sometimes called ASA, on April 5, 1968, and
served upon Raynal Plymouth Company, hereinafter
referred to as the Respondent or Company, on or about
the same day. An amended charge in this proceeding was
filed by ASA on April 18, 1968, and served upon the
Respondent on or about the same day. The Respondent is
alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
by refusing to bargain collectively with the ASA as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
Respondent's employees. By answer duly filed,
Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices
A hearing was held before me in Detroit, Michigan, on
September 17 and 18, 1968, at which all parties were
represented and were afforded full opportunity to
participate, examine witnesses, and adduce relevant
evidence. Briefs have been received from the General
Counsel and the Respondent and have been given careful
consideration.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is, and has been at all times matenal
herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan with its place
of business in Detroit, Michigan, where it is engaged in
the retail sale and servicing of automobiles and related
automotive products. During the calendar year ending
December 31, 1967, which period is representative of its
operations at all times matenal herein, Respondent in the
course and conduct of its business operations obtained
gross revenues in excess of $500,000 from the sale and
distribution of new and used automobiles and trucks at its
Detroit, Michigan, place of business. The complaint
further alleges that during the same calendar year,
Respondent in the course and conduct of its business
operations, received goods and materials valued in excess
of $10,000 which were transported directly to its Detroit,
Michigan, location from places outside the State of
Michigan, and further, that the Respondent is now and
has been at all times material herein an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and
(7) of the Act. Although these allegations of the complaint
were not admitted by the Respondent in its answer, during
the course of the hearing counsel for the Respondent
stipulated to the facts alleged in the complaint which are
jurisdictional, amending his answer accordingly and
conceding jurisdiction.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In a Decision and Direction of Election issued on
October 31, 1966, and based upon a stipulation by the
parties, the Regional Director for Region 7 found that a
unit comprised of new and used car and truck salesmen
employed at Raynal Plymouth Company constituted an
appropriate unit . On or about December 7, 1966, a
majority of the employees in the unit described, by secret
ballot election, designated and selected the ASA as their
exclusive representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining with the Respondent. On March 30, 1967 the
Regional Director for Region 7 certified the ASA and on
February 9, 1968, amended the certification to show
ASA's affiliation with SIUNA as the certified union.
Raynal Plymouth Company petitioned for an election
on March 29, 1968. This petition was dismissed by the
Regional Director on July 24, 1968 because of the
pendency of the charges filed in the instant proceeding.
In the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election referred to above, issued on October 31, 1966, it
was noted that the parties stipulated to the establishment
of separate units for Raynal Plymouth Company and
Raynal Brothers Company. Raynal Brothers Company is
a Dodge auto agency located next door to Raynal
Plymouth Company Both Raynal companies have
common ownership of their capital stock, common
executive control, one office force servicing both
corporations, geographic proximity, similar hours and
working conditions of the salesmen employed by the two
companies, substantial movement of the employees from
one sales room to another, and a sharing of a used car lot
and automotive service facilities. Although a majority of
the employees of Raynal Plymouth Company designated
the ASA as their collective-bargaining representative, a
majority of the Raynal Brothers Company employees did
not vote for any labor organization appearing on the
ballot. The Acting Regional Director for the Seventh
Region in a decision issued June 20, 1968, found that-
. The employees of the two corporations involved,
which have been found to constitute a single employer,
have a close community of interest and ... they should
appropriately be included in one bargaining unit.
He added, however,
. There is no question concerning representation
among the employees in the unit of Raynal Plymouth
Co., accordingly, I shall direct an election only among
the salesmen of the Employer [Raynal Brothers Co.]
where a question concerning representation has arisen.
In view of the finding that an overall unit of the
salesmen of the two corporate entities is appropriate, I
will permit the unrepresented employees of the
employer to decide if they wish to become a part of
such a unit If the majority of the employees in the
voting group set out below select the Petitioner they will
thereby have indicated their desire to be included in an
overall unit with the employees of Raynal Plymouth
Co. now represented by the Petitioner and will be part
RAYNAL PLYMOUTH CO. 529
of such unit .... If a majority of the employees in the
voting group vote against the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to remain
unrepresented
B. The Refusal To Bargain
As stated earlier, the Union was certified by the Board
on March 30, 1967, as the exclusive representative of the
sales employees at Raynal Plymouth Company
On April 4, 1967, the Union wrote to the Respondent,
Attention- Mr Pol Raynal, Sr , the president and general
manager of Respondent, notifying him of the certification
and advising him that a union official would contact him
by telephone during the next few days for the purpose of
determining a convenient day to commence collective
bargaining Jack G Burwell, attorney for the Respondent,
answered this letter on April 5, acknowledging the receipt
of the Union's letter to the Respondent but declining to
meet because of his pending "Objections" on behalf of
Respondent.
On October 9, 1967, the Union again wrote to the
Respondent, Attention Pol Raynal, Sr, stating that the
Union requests the Respondent to commence collective
bargaining. This letter was answered on October 12, 1967,
advising the Union that the employer was willing to meet
at mutually agreeable times and places for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement. There followed several attempts
to arrange a negotiating meeting. On October 30, 1967,
Messrs White and Shekell, Union business agents, visited
the Respondent. In the absence of Mr. Raynal, Sr., the
receptionist referred them to Mr Somntak, the general
manager of Raynal Brothers Co., the Dodge dealership.
The Union representatives left a copy of the Union's
proposed noneconomic contract with Somntak who agreed
to give the contract to Raynal, Sr. and to tell him that the
ASA wanted to arrange a negotiating meeting On the
following day, Shekell telephoned the Respondent and,
finding Raynal, Sr., absent, asked that he return his call.
On the following day, November 1, Shekell telephoned the
Respondent once again, and again found that Raynal, Sr.,
was not in. This time he spoke to Pol Raynal, Jr., son of
Pol Raynal, Sr., who advised him that he had the
noneconomic contract which Shekell had left with
Somntak and would see that his father got it. On the same
day, Shekell called again at which time Pol Raynal, Jr.,
said that he would talk to his father and call back.
On the next day, November 2, no return call having
been received from the Respondent, Shekell again called
Raynal, Jr , who advised Shekell that Raynal, Sr., did not
read English very well, but that Raynal, Jr., would read
the contract to his father and call the Union back Four
days later, Raynal, Jr., called the Union and informed
Shekell that he should arrange a negotiating meeting with
Mr Burwell, the Respondent's attorney. On November 8,
the Union called Mr. Burwell and arranged for a
negotiating meeting on December 15 (This date is also
mentioned as December 11 ) Later, at Burwell's request,
this December 15 meeting was canceled '
The next attempt at arranging a negotiating meeting
was made by Union representative White who called
Burwell on or about February 15, 1968, and arranged for
a meeting on March 12. In the meantime, on February
23, 1968, the Union wrote to "Raynal Brothers Company,
Attention Mr. Pol Raynal, Sr." In this letter the Union
once again requested "immediate good-faith bargaining
with the Union for the purpose of reaching a
collective-bargaining contract covering your employees in
the previous NLRB certified unit " It requested
acknowledgment of the letter on or before March 1, 1968,
and concluded "Your failure to respond promptly shall be
construed by the Union as a refusal to bargain and the
appropriate legal procedures will be undertaken by the
Union."2 The scheduled meeting for March 12 was
canceled by Mr. Burwell, but White rescheduled another
meeting with Burwell for March 28.
The Union and the Employer finally met at a meeting
held March 28, 1968. Present were Mr. White
representing the Union and Mr Burwell representing the
Employer. The Union presented its economic and
non-economic proposals to Mr. Burwell. Burwell told
White that any agreement reached would be subject to the
Union proving its majority status. The two men
"discussed" the economic items in the ASA proposals and
certain typographical errors were corrected in such
proposals. No agreement, however, was reached and no
counterproposals were made by Burwell. It was decided to
hold another meeting on April 11, 1968
On the next day, however, March 29, 1968, the
Employer filed a RM petition for a representation election
which was dismissed by the Regional Director on July 24,
1968 as stated earlier.
The next meeting between the Union and the Employer
was held as scheduled on April 11, 1968. Present were
Raynal, Sr., Raynal, Jr , and Burwell, representing the
Employer, and White and Shekell representing the Union.
Once again Burwell stated that any contract would be
subject to the Union's proof of its majority status. In
response to the Union's statement that it expected
counterproposals at this time, Burwell indicated that he
had none since it was "necessary to thoroughly
understand" the Union's original proposals. Raynal, Sr.
professed a great difficulty in understanding the proposals
of the Union as well as the propriety of ASA's affiliation
with SIUNA. Although the Employer's representative
indicated dissatisfaction with some of the proposals of the
Union, no counterproposals were submitted. Instead, they
indicated a desire to go over the language of the proposals
submitted by the Union When Burwell indicated his
inability to continue the meeting that same afternoon, it
was agreed to meet again on April 30, but that meeting
was canceled by the Union which had filed its unfair labor
practice charges earlier that month charging that the
Respondent had refused to bargain with the Union prior
to March 28, 1968, and had bargained, but in bad faith,
on and after March 28, 1968
C Conclusions
Counsel for the Respondent argues that Respondent
had no obligation to bargain with respect to the
bargaining unit at Raynal Plymouth Co., contending that
'Although Raynal, Jr, stated that his first contacts with Shekell were in
February 1968, Raynal, Sr testified that he received a copy of the Union's
proposals within a few days after it was left with Somntak on October 30,
1967 He also admitted receiving the Union's letter of October 9, 1967,
which requested bargaining , and referring it to Burwell Further, he
admitted receiving messages from Raynal, Jr , and Somntak that the
Union was trying to communicate with him to set up negotiations
'Although this letter was not addressed to the Respondent, but to the
Dodge agency next door , its reference to the Regional Director ' s Decision
of February 9, 1968, which referred specifically to the certified unit of the
Respondent , not Raynal Brothers Co , makes it quite clear that the
bargaining request demanded of Pol Raynal, Sr , concerned Raynal
Plymouth Company, the Respondent here
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director's decision of June 20 found that the
unit certified on March 30, 1967 for Raynal Plymouth
Co. was an inappropriate bargaining unit I do not so read
the Director's decision It is true that the Director in that
decision found that the employees of both Raynal
Plymouth and Raynal Brothers "should appropriately be
included in one bargaining unit," since the two
corporations constituted a single employer. It does not
necessarily follow, however, that such a combined
bargaining unit is the only appropriate bargaining unit.
Even if I were to assume that such a combined bargaining
unit was the most appropriate or the optimum bargaining
unit it would not preclude the existence of a bargaining
unit at Raynal Plymouth Co. I find nothing in that
Director's decision that a unit of the Raynal Plymouth
Co employees would be inappropriate Indeed, his
Decision and Direction of Election of October 31, 1966
was to the contrary and was based upon a stipulation by
the parties I conclude, therefore, that Respondent had
and has an obligation to bargain for employees within an
appropriate bargaining unit and that the unit stipulated
between the parties and ruled upon by the Regional
Director on October 31, 1966, to wit, the new and used
car and truck salesmen employed at Raynal Plymouth
Company constituted an appropriate unit.
Counsel for the Respondent concedes that there is a
presumption of a continuing majority during the
certification year which in this case started on March 30,
1967. He also states quite correctly that that presumption
becomes rebuttable upon the expiration of that year. He
argues, however, that "the certification year had all but
elapsed when Respondent announced it doubted the
ASA's majority status " Such doubt was expressed by
Burwell in his meeting with White on March 28, 1968, but
one day before the end of the certification year Assuming
without deciding that the Respondent's expressed doubt of
the Union's majority status on March 28, 1968 was not
premature despite the fact that the certification year had a
day or two more to run, it is not sufficient merely to
assert a doubt As the Board ruled in United States
Gypsum Company, 143 NLRB 122
Similarly, in questioning the Union's majority status
near and after the end of the certification year the
Respondent was clearly expressing unwillingness to
bargain with the Union While such conduct may be
excused where evidence exists that an employer had a
good-faith doubt of the certified union's continuing
majority, no such showing appears here.
Respondent contends that there are "objective
considerations of majority loss" in this proceeding First,
he cites employees' statements of anti-union attitude.
Thus, employee Leclerc testified that Raynal, Sr. asked
him what he thought of the Union and how he would
vote, to which Leclerc replied that he was not "on the
whole for it." He was unable, however, to fix a date for
this conversation admitting that it could have taken place
after March 30, 1968. Similarly, employee Manus testified
that Raynal, Sr. asked him how he felt about the Union
to which Manos replied that he "chose not to have a
representative ASA represent" him. He too, however, was
unable to fix the date of this conversation except to state
that it took place sometime between January and May,
1968 The Board has held that "whether an employer
entertained a genuine doubt that a union represents a
majority of the employees is to be determined as of the
time the employer refused to recognize the Union." Snow
v. N L.R B., 308 F 2d 687. The testimony of these two
employee witnesses is insufficient to establish that the
Respondent knew or had reason to believe that the Union
had lost its majority status on or before March 1968.
Moreover, a good-faith doubt based upon a poll
conducted in a coercive atmosphere is considered not
reliable and its results not a valid ground for believing
that a union 's majority status has been dissipated The
Board has established that tests in such a situation in
Struksnes Construction Co., Inc., 165 NLRB No 102,
elaborating upon the tests which had previously been
established in Blue Flash Express, 109 NLRB 591:
Absent unusual circumstances . . . an employer will be
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act unless the
following safeguards are observed: (1) The purpose of
the poll is to determine the truth of a Union's claim of
majority (2) this purpose is communicated to the
employees (3) assurances against reprisal are given (4)
the employees are polled by secret ballot, and (5) the
employer has not engaged in unfair labor practices or
otherwise created a coercive atmosphere.
It would not appear that in this instance safeguards 1, 2,
3, and 4 were observed by Raynal, Sr , in his
conversations with Manos and Leclerc H P Wasson &
Company, 170 NLRB No. 3, Lilliston Implement
Company, 171 NLRB No. 19. 1 conclude therefore that
the statements of the employees given Raynal, Sr. under
the circumstances described and at times which may well
have been after March 1968, are insufficient to establish
the employer's good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
status as of the time it raised that issue and refused to
bargain.
The next "objective consideration of majority loss"
argued by the Respondent is the Union's failure to affirm
that it was the majority representative upon Respondent's
request. Insofar as such requests were made during the
certification year, there would appear to be no reason for
a Union to affirm its majority status, such being the
conclusive presumption during the certification year The
rule should not be any different even after the certification
year when a presumption of union majority exists in the
absence of any unusual circumstances.
Respondent next argues indications of a majority loss
by reason of the passage of approximately 1 3/4 years
since the filing of the representation petition which was
filed on July 28, 1966. The critical date, however, is the
date of certification which was March 30, 1967, after
which the Union's majority status was conclusively
presumed in the absence of unusual circumstances
Finally, Respondent argues "objective considerations of
majority loss" because no bargaining unit employees
attended bargaining sessions The short answer to this
argument is that the bargaining unit employees are
deemed to attend the bargaining sessions by the presence
of their duly designated representatives.
Respondent further argues that it did not refuse to
bargain. A review of the chronology of the events between
the parties lends little weight to this argument. The Union
requested bargaining only a few days after it had been
certified by the Board. The Respondent refused this
request because of "pending objections," although the
record is not clear concerning what pending objections
Respondent was referring to. Six months later, the Union
once again requested bargaining. After a number of
attempts to arrange a bargaining meeting, during which
time Raynal, Sr. was inaccessible, the Union was advised
to arrange a meeting with the Respondent's attorney. A
meeting was thus arranged for December 15, but, at the
Respondent's attorney's request, the meeting was
canceled Two months later the Union representatives
RAYNAL PLYMOUTH CO.
called the attorney once again and arranged for a meeting
on March 12 This meeting again was canceled by the
Respondent's attorney and rescheduled for March 28
when the Respondent's attorney and a union
representative met. It is thus clear that the failure to meet
was not due to any dereliction on the part of the Union
which had made repeated requests for bargaining meetings
and had even submitted proposals for a contract but was
due entirely to the Respondent- who avoided and evaded
the Union in its requests for a meeting until March 28,
only a day or two before the end of the certification year.
Such behavior of the Respondent cannot be deemed the
"conscientious cooperation" required for good-faith
bargaining N L.R B v. St Clair Lime Co, 315 F.2d 224,
227. Even on March 28 there was no real bargaining.
Respondent's attorney conditioned any agreement to be
reached upon the Union proving its majority status, a
doubt which I have already found to be lacking in good
faith because it was lacking in objective considerations.
Moreover, although Respondent had had the Union's
proposals for some 5 months, it presented no
counterproposals nor any preliminary agreement at this
meeting. Such discussions as were held on that day were
not sufficient to transform the meeting into a bargaining
session. The mere correction of typographical errors and
the reception by the Respondent's attorney of the Union's
proposals without any statement of position on his part
except to doubt the Union's majority status is merely
conversation. and not bargaining. Transmarine Navigation
Corporation, 152 NLRB 998
The next meeting between the parties was on April 11,
1968. Once again the Respondent expressed its demand
that the Union prove its majority status but once again
the Respondent had no counterproposals to offer to the
Union's original proposals. Although the Union's
proposals had been with the Respondent for almost 6
months the Respondent insisted upon more time to study
the Union's proposals. Indeed, the Respondent was not
prepared even to discuss the Union's proposals at the
April 11 meeting.
It is clear to me that until March 28, 1968, the
Respondent avoided negotiating meetings and that on
March 28, as well as on April 11, 1968, attended meetings
that were not bargaining meetings but merely
conversational meetings, the Respondent's representative
admitting their unpreparedness to negotiate. The inference
is clear to me that the Respondent at no time intended to
engage in good-faith negotiations, and has refused to
negotiate in good faith with the Union.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By refusing on and since April 5, 1967, to bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative of 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 The aforesaid unfair
labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
531
By refusing to bargain for practically all of the Union's
first year as certified bargaining representative, the
Respondent deprived its employees of representation by a
bargaining agency possessing the status and enjoying the
presumptions attaching to such organizations for the
period of a year following certification To place the
Respondent and the Union in as nearly the same situation
as possible to that which existed before April 5, it will be
recommended that upon resumption of bargaining and for
one year thereafter the Union be regarded as if the initial
year of certification had not yet expired Burnett
Construction Co, 149 NLRB 1419.
It will be recommended that upon request the
Respondent bargain with the Union concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
reduce it to writing and sign it
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, I recommend that the Respondent,
Raynal Plymouth Company, its officers, agents,
successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to bargain with Automotive Salesmen's
Association (A.S A.) affiliated with SIUNA, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of employees in the
appropriate unit.
(b) In any like or similar manner, interfering with,
restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Automotive Salesmen's
Association, (A.S.A.) affiliated with SIUNA, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain
from any or all such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit and if an understanding is reached,
reduce it to writing and sign it. Regard the Union upon
resumption of bargaining and for one year thereafter as if
the initial year following certification had not expired.
(b) Post at its place of business in Detroit, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice on forms to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by a
representative of the Respondent, be posted and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
'If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended
Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice If the Board 's Order is enforced
by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be
further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision
and Order "
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.'
'if this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT by refusing to bargain or in any like
or similar manner interfere with, restrain or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join or assist the Automotive
Salesmen's Association, (A S.A.) affiliated with
SIUNA, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such
activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as
permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the
above-named Union for the unit described below in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached, reduce it to writing and sign
it The bargaining unit is.
All new and used car and truck salesmen at Raynal
Plymouth Company's operations excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act and all other employees
RAYNAL PLYMOUTH
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan,
Telephone 313-226-3244.