Tower Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 298 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engineering division, and leadmen in the respective depart-
ments and locations listed above, exclusive of all other em-
ployees; employees of the engineering division permanently
assigned to other divisions of the mill, research division
employees, dispatcher, assistant dispatchers, telephone op-
erators, office clerical and plant clerical employees, technical
employees, professional employees, foremen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the joint represent-
ative to negotiate for or represent as exclusive bargaining agent
the employees in the bargaining unit described above.
S. D. WARREN 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street,
Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Tower Iron Works , Inc. and Shopmen's Local Union No. 523 of
the International Association of Bridge , Structural & Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO and Independent Metal Fabri-
cators Union , Party to the Contract . Case No. 1-CA-4485-2.
December 16, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There-
after, Respondent and the Party to the Contract each filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and Respondent filed a supporting
brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
15'0 NLRB No. 24.
TOWER IRON WORKS. INC. 299
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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, the briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order , the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Tower
Iron Works, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
The original charge herein was served upon Respondent on February 18, 1964,
the complaint issued on March 31, and the case was heard before Trial Examiner
Sidney Sherman on June 3. The issue litigated was whether, by recognizing and
contracting with the Independent, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act. After the hearing briefs were filed by Respondent and the General Counsel.
General Counsel filed a motion to strike certain portions of Respondent's brief, which
allegedly were not supported by the record. Respondent opposed this motion and,
in turn, filed a motion to strike parts of the General Counsel's brief. Both motions
are hereby denied.
Upon the entire record,1 and from my observation of the witnesses, I adopt the
following findings of fact:
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Tower Iron Works, Inc., herein called Respondent, is a Massachusetts corporation,
with its principal office and plant at Seekonk, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in
the manufacture and sale of iron and steel products. Respondent annually ships to
out-of-State points goods valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Shopmen's Local Union No. 523 of the International Association of Bridge , Struc-
tural & Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO, herein called Iron Workers, and Inde-
pendent Metal Fabricators Union , herein called the Independent , are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of the Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that since February 17, 1964,2 Respondent has rendered
unlawful assistance to the Independent, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act, by recognizing it as the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees,
at a time when a question concerning the representation of such employees existed,
and by executing with the Independent, on or about March 2, a collective-bargaining
i After the hearing, General Counsel filed a motion to correct the record As there was
no opposition thereto, this motion is hereby granted, and It is ordered incorporated in
the record as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1.
2 AU events herein occurred in the fall of 1963 and early in 1964 , unless otherwise
indicated.
300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement covering Respondent's' employees, notwithstanding the pendency of such
representation question. The answer denies any violation.
A. Sequence of events
There is no substantial dispute as to the facts.
For over 10 years Respondent has been a member of Building Metal Fabricators-
Rhode Island District, hereinafter called the Association. The other members were
Providence Steel and Iron Company, Rumford Steel Products, Inc., and John E. Cox
Company, Inc., and, since at least 1953, all four companies have bargained through
the Association with Iron Workers as the representative of their employees, executing
a series of contracts during that period. The last such contract ran from September'l,
1960, to August 31, 1963. Negotiations between Iron Workers and the Association
for a new contract began in August 1963, and continued thereafter. Meanwhile, on
September 3, Iron Workers called a strike of the employees of the members of the
Association, including Respondent, which strike continued to December 16. Some
of the strikers were permanently replaced during the strike and others returned before
the termination of the strike. The remaining unreplaced strikers were rehired on or
after December 16.
On January 21 Iron Workers transmitted to the Association and each member
thereof, including Respondent, a' copy of a draft of a contract, together with a letter
asserting that such draft represented the agreement reached by the parties in negotia-
tions, and requesting that the Association and its members sign the draft. On Janu-
ary 22 the Association referred Iron Workers to the Association's attorney, Chandler,
to whom on January 24 Iron Workers addressed a request in writing for execution
of the draft agreement. There is no evidence as to what reply, if any, was made by
Chandler. On February 4 the Association was dissolved by its members, without
any notice to Iron Workers. On February 11 Iron Workers wrote Respondent and
the Association, again soliciting execution of the draft agreement.
On February 17 representatives of Iron Workers met with Chandler, and when
they again urged execution of the draft agreement, Chandler refused, citing, inter alia,
doubt as to, Iron Workers' majority status in the associationwide unit, but omitting
any mention of the dissolution of the Association. On February 19 Respondent
received a wire from the Independent requesting recognition as the representative of
Respondent's employees. On February 21, after ascertaining by means of a card
check that the Independent in fact represented a majority of its employees, Respond-
ent recognized the Independent, .and on March 2 executed a contract with it covering
Respondent's employees.3 -
B. Discussion
The General Counsel contends that at the time Respondent recognized the Inde-
pendent and signed a contract with it there was pending a question concerning the
representation of Respondent's employees, raised by Iron Workers continuing claim
to represent such employees in the associationwide unit, and that, under the Board's
Midwest Piping rule,4 it was unlawful for Respondent to recognize and deal with the
Independent in the face of such claim.
Respondent contends, initially, that no demand for bargaining was made by Iron
Workers upon it but only upon the Association. However, it is clear that Iron Work-
8 On March 10, 1964, a Board Trial Examiner issued a decision in a case arising from
a charge by Iron Workers that the Association and its members had during the term of
the 4960-63 contract violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, by refusing to furnish certain
data to Iron Workers (Case No. 1-CA-4246). The Trial Examiner found such violation,
and ordered the Association and respondent to furnish the data in issue, upon request, to
Iron Workers, as the statutory representative of the employees in the associationwide unit.
That case is now pending before the Board on exceptions by the respondents therein
The General Counsel does not here contend that the Trial Examiner's findings in that
case are binding here with regard to issues common to both cases=namely, the appro-
priatenessof the associationwide unit and the majority status of Iron Workers therein.
Nor is it apparent how such findings could be binding here, absent final action thereon
by the . Board. Moreover, while such findings ostensibly speak as of the date of the
Decision, which issued on March 10; 1964, the'Trial Examiner was necessarily relying
on the evidence presented to him, which related only to the situation prior to Septem-
ber 1963, and his findings as to the appropriateness of 'the assoclationwide unit and Iron
Workers' majority status must therefore be deemed to apply only to that period.
* Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060. Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB
1573, at footnote'4 . That rule is applicable, whether or not a representation petition Is
pending before the Board.,
TOWER IRON WORKS, INC. 301
ers on January 21, and February 11, transmitted to Respondent, as a member of the
Association, a draft of its proposed contract covering the associationwide unit, with
a request that it be signed by Respondent, among others. While it is true that this
request was predicated upon an associationwide unit, Respondent was thereby put
upon notice that Iron Workers still regarded Respondent as part of that unit, and
wished to bargain with it on that basis, albeit through its representative, the
Association.
Respondent's main defense appears to be that the Midwest Piping rule is not
applicable here, because Iron Workers' claim was predicated on the associationwide
unit, and by the time Respondent recognized the Independent such unit had ceased
to be appropriate, the Association having been dissolved.5 This contention brings
into focus the central issue of this case-namely, whether the associationwide unit
was rendered inappropriate by the dissolution of the Association without any notice
to, or consent by, the incumbent union , and while such union was still seeking to
negotiate a new agreement.
It appears to be well settled that, subject to limitations to be discussed below, an
employer is free to withdraw from multiemployer bargaining by manifesting an
unequivocal intent to abandon such bargaining procedure in favor of individual
bargaining, and that once such withdrawal is properly effected, the employees of
such employer will no longer be deemed to be part of the multiemployer unit but
will be found by the Board to constitute a separate, appropriate unit. Accordingly,
if Respondent (together with the other Association members) properly withdrew from
the Association on February 4, it would follow that its employees after that date
constituted a separate, appropriate unit and that, by its efforts on February 11 and 17
to complete the negotiations for an associationwide contract, Iron Workers was in
effect seeking to continue to represent Respondent's employees in an inappropriate
(associationwide) unit. Under such circumstances, the Midwest Piping rule would,
as Respondent contends, be inapplicable, and Respondent would be free to recognize
the Independent, notwithstanding Iron Workers' claim.
However, under Board policy abandonment of multiemployer bargaining is ineffec-
tive to remove an employer 's employees from a multiemployer unit , unless it occurs at
an appropriate time, and such withdrawal does not occur at an appropriate time if, as
here, it takes place during the pendency of negotiations for a new contract, and
without the consent of the incumbent unions
The Board's latest statement on this point appears in the C & M Construction case,
supra, where the Board said:
On the facts as set forth above, we ... find that the Respondent's withdrawal
was not at a normal appropriate time coming after the commencement of nego-
tiations for a new [multi-employerl agreement.?
It follows that Respondent was not free to withdraw from multiemployer bargain-
ing on February 4, as Iron Workers was then still seeking to complete the negotiations
for a new contract and did not consent to such withdrawal .8
s Respondent here relies on William Penn Broadcasting Company, 93 NLRB 1104, hold-
ing that a representation claim in an Inappropriate unit does not render unlawful the
recognition of another union In an appropriate unit.
9 Walker Electric Company, 142 NLRB 1214 ; Daelyte Service Company, 126 NLRB 63;
Cosmopolitan Studios, Inc ., 127 NLRB 788 , 789; McAnary & Welter, Inc ., 115 NLRB
1029; Donaldson Sales, Inc., 141 NLRB 1303. See C & M Construction Co., 147 NLRB
843; Retail Association, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 395.
7 While in the C & M case the Board ultimately concluded that the respondent's with
drawal from multiemployer bargaining was effective, this was only because the union
Involved was found to have acquiesced In such withdrawal , a factor not here present.
8 While, as already related , Respondent , on February 17, expressed doubt as to Iron
Workers' majority status In the Association unit, there Is no evidence or contention that
such doubt prompted the dissolution of the Association. Moreover , while Iron Workers'
majority status among Respondent's employees was extensively litigated , the only evidence
in the record as to Iron Workers' majority status In February 1964 in the association-
wide unit consists of certain rulings by the General Counsel explaining the administrative
dismissal of refusal-to-bargain charges filed by Iron Workers against the Association,
apparently in March 1964 (Case No. 1-CA-4485-1-5). In any event , even if it be assumed
that Iron Workers ceased to be the statutory representative of the joint unit before
February 4, and that Respondent was privileged for that reason to withdraw on that date
from joint bargaining , it would still be necessary to determine the question next consid-
ered in the text-namely, whether Respondent manifested Its intent to withdraw In an
appropriate fashion.
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, even if Respondent were deemed free to withdraw from joint bargaining
on February 4, it would still be necessary to determine whether it took the steps
necessary to effect such withdrawal. It is well settled that an employer may withdraw
from joint bargaining only by unequivocally manifesting his intent to be bound in
the future by individual, rather than joint, action,9 and that an equivocal withdrawal
will not suffice.1° While the dissolution of the Association, considered alone, might
be deemed to be an unequivocal manifestation of the intent of the employer-members
to abandon joint bargaining and pursue individual negotiations in the future, subse-
quent events cast doubt on this interpretation. If on February 4 such employers in
fact intended no longer to deal with Iron Workers (or any other union) for the joint
unit, it is not clear why such intention was not disclosed to Iron Workers at the time
of the dissolution of the Association, nor why, when Iron Workers 2 weeks later
pressed Chandler, as spokesman for the Association, for the reason for the Associa-
tion's rejection of the proposed contract, he avoided any mention of the dissolution
action. Indeed, the reasons he cited to Iron Workers for rejecting its contract-
that the Association (1) had not agreed to such contract, and (2) questioned the
Iron Workers' majority status in the associationwide unit-implied that the Asso-
ciation was still functioning, that the associationwide unit was still in existence, and
that, if Iron Workers could prove is majority status or present an acceptable contract,
an obstacle to an associationwide agreement would be removed. While Chandler
intimated that there were other reasons for the rejection of the contract, he refused to
elucidate those reasons, although pressed by Iron Workers to do so.
The foregoing cloak of secrecy surrounding the Association's dissolution, the
absence of any explanation for such secrecy,11 Chandler's deliberate refusal to lift
that cloak, and his implying instead that the Association was still in existence would
seem to be inconsistent with the Board's requirement that, to be effective, an employ-
er's withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining must be unequivocal. Such conduct
is more consistent with an intention to straddle the issue of joint bargaining versus
individual bargaining, in the hope of deriving the maximum tactical advantage from
such ambiguous position. Thus, while Chandler, by questioning Iron Workers'
majority status in the associationwide unit, interposed an obstacle to any immediate
resumption of joint bargaining, he at the same time avoided any statement that would
have committed Respondent (and the other Association members) to individual bar-
gaining. Thereby, he not only frustrated any further joint bargaining, but also
deterred Iron Workers from seeking separate bargaining.
The foregoing circumstances also lend force to the General Counsel's contention
that Respondent should, in any case, be held to be estopped to assert as a defense that
a unit limited to Respondent's employees is alone appropriate, and that Iron Workers'
claim in the larger unit was therefore for an inappropriate unit. In that respect, the
situation here is strikingly like that in the Daelyte Service case.12 There Daelyte
had been a member of an employer-association, which in 1955 executed a collective-
bargaining contract to expire on April 15, 1957. In November 1956, during the term
of this contract, Daelyte resigned from the association but no notice of such resigna-
tion was given to the union until June 15, 1957, and then only after it had negotiated
a new contract with the association, which was presented to Daelyte for its signature.
The Board held that under these circumstances Daelyte was estopped from asserting
that only a separate unit of its employees was appropriate.
It follows from this that Respondent's defense that no timely claim was made by
Iron Workers in a unit limited to Respondent's employees must fail, either because
the multiemployer unit was still the appropriate unit at all times here material, absent
any timely or unequivocal withdrawal therefrom by Respondent, or because Respond-
ent was, in any event, estopped from relying on such defense in view of the conceal-
ment of such withdrawal.13
e See, e g., Des Homes Packing Company, 106 NLRB 206.
iu Blue Ribbon Products Co., Inc., et at., 106 NLRB 562 ; Carnation Company, 90 NLRB
1808.
u At the hearing Respondent offered no explanation therefor ; and Respondent's brief
contains on this point merely an attempt to supply legal justification for such secrecy,
asserting that Iron Workers was no longer the statutory representative of the joint unit,
and therefore, no duty of disclosure was owed to it (see footnote 13, below, as to the
validity of this contention). However, the brief does not assert that this was in fact
the reason for the nondisclosure.
19 See footnote 6, supra.
Is In its brief, Respondent contends that it should not be held to be estopped from rely-
ing on the undisclosed dissolution of the Association, as no duty of disclosure was owed
TOWER IRON WORKS, INC. 303
I find, therefore, that Iron Workers' demand, as late as February 17, for recogni-
tion and bargaining with respect to the associationwide unit raised a valid question
concerning representation in such unit, and that Respondent's conduct in recognizing,
and contracting with, the Independent in the face of such demand violated Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action.
It will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to withdraw all recognition
from the Independent as the representative of any of its employees, and unless and
until the Independent shall have demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among Respondent's employees. It will also be recom-
mended that Respondent be ordered to cease giving force and effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement of March 2. However, nothing contained herein shall be
construed as requiring Respondent to vary wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive
terms of employment, which Respondent has established in the performance of its
contract, or to prejudice the assertion by its employees of any right that they may
have thereunder.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Iron Workers and the Independent are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing, and contracting with, the Independent during the pendency of
a question concerning representation, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, Tower Iron Works, Inc., Seekonk,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall be ordered to:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting, or contributing support to, Independent Metal Fabricators Union
or any other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing Independent Metal Fabricators Union as the representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclu-
sive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among Respondent's
employees.
to Iron Workers, in view of Its asserted loss of majority status. Respondent cites no
legal authority for this contention. Under common law rules of agency, it is clear that,
as the Respondent and the other Association members had dealt with Iron Workers
through their joint agent (the Association), it was incumbent upon them to notify Iron
Workers of any termination of the Association's authority. See 2 C.J.S. Agency § 77, at
1166-1167 It follows that, absent such notice, Iron Workers was entitled to assume that
the Association was still empowered to bargain jointly for its members , that the assocla-
tionwide unit was therefore still appropriate, and that any claim in a lesser unit would
be Invalid. Moreover, there is involved here more than a mere act of omission. The
Association's assignment of its reasons for rejecting Iron Workers contract , which im-
plied that the associationwide unit was still in existence , were tantamount to affirmative
representations to that effect.
775-692-65-vol. 150-21
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement of March 2, 1964, between
Respondent and Independent Metal Fabricators Union, or to any extension, renewal,
or modification thereof; provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall require
Respondent to vary, any wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its
relations with its employees which Respondent has established in the performance
of this agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may
have thereunder.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights 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 is deemed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Independent Metal Fabricators
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until the said
labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative
status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among Respondent's employees.
(b) Post at its plant at Seekonk, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by its authorized representative,
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the
date of receipt of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith.15
v In the event that 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. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, 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, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT assist, or contribute support to,, Independent Metal Fabricators
Union, or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from the Independent Metal
Fabricators Union as the representative of our employees for the purpose of
dealing with us concerning grievances, wages, hours, or other conditions of work,
unless and until said Union is duly certified by the Board as such representative.
WE WILL NOT give any effect to the contract negotiated by us on March 2,
1964, with said Union, or any renewal, extension, modification, or supplement,
thereof. We are not, however, required to vary any wage, hour, seniority, or
other term of employment established under said contract, and our employees
are free to assert any rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist Shopmen's Local Union No. 523 of the International Association of
Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively, ithrough representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective-
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, INC. 305
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 the provisos in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
TOWER IRON WORKS, INC.,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24 School
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone No. 523-8100, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Southern Transport , Inc. and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local
Union #568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 26-
CA-1781. December 16, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union
#568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 26, issued a complaint dated June 16, 1964,
against Southern Transport, Inc., herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges
in substance that the Union was and is the exclusive representative
of certain employees of the Respondent in the appropriate unit
certified on September 17, 1962, by the Regional Director, and that
on or about March 16, 1964, and thereafter the Respondent unlaw-
fully refused to bargain with the Union.
The Respondent's answer, filed on June 26, 1964, admits certain
jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies
the commission of unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, all parties to this proceeding entered into a stipula-
tion of facts, and requested that the proceeding be transferred di-
rectly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
decision and order. The request states that the parties have waived
their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the issuance
150 NLRB No. 20.