A to Z Maintenance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1992

309 N.L.R.B. 672 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

672
309 NLRB No. 98
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credi-
bility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an
administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.
188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 We affirm the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(2) and (1) by recognizing Laborers Local 135 at a time
when it did not have majority support among the unit employees.
We accordingly find it unnecessary to pass on whether the Respond-
ent’s recognition of Laborers Local 135 was, in addition, premature
on the basis of lack of a representative complement.
The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s failure to find
that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling em-
ployee Mark Windish to advise the employees that they should join
Laborers Local 135 ‘‘for job security reasons.’’ The judge dismissed
this allegation as superfluous. Member Oviatt, under the cir-
cumstances of this case, would find that this directive is coercive
and that it violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act, and that the finding is
not superfluous.
1 The complaint originally included allegations against Laborers as
well. However, before the hearing opened, the Regional Director
issued an order dismissing those allegations and severing the case
against Laborers from that against Respondent, apparently in reliance
on Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 228 NLRB 468 (1977).
2 I hereby grant the General Counsel’s unopposed motion to cor-
rect the transcript.
A to Z Maintenance Corp. and Teamsters Local
Union 429, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO and Mark W. Windish and
James E. Harper, Jr. and Laborers Local 135,
affiliated with the Laborers District Council of
Metropolitan Area of Philadelphia and Vicin-
ity, Party to the Contract. Cases 4–CA–19377,
4–CA–20169, and 4–CA–19984
November 30, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
On March 4, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Rob-
ert A. Giannasi issued the attached decision. The Party
to the Contract filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answer to those ex-
ceptions, cross-exceptions, and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
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 briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, A to Z Maintenance Corp.,
Glassboro, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Barbara Joseph, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gregory B. Montgomery, Esq., of Lawnside, New Jersey, for
the Respondent.
Thomas H. Kohn, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the
Charging Party.
Robert C. Cohen, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the
Party to the Contract.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried on December 3, 4, and 5, 1991, in Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by making coercive state-
ments to employees, and Section 8(a)(2), (3), and (1) of the
Act by recognizing Laborers Local 135 (Laborers) as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees
and thereafter entering into, maintaining, and enforcing a col-
lective-bargaining agreement between it and Laborers, which
included, among other provisions, a union-security clause
which required employees to join Laborers and pay dues and
fees to it as a condition of employment. The complaint also
alleges that, pursuant to the bargaining agreement, Respond-
ent deducted union dues from the paychecks of employees
and forwarded the money to Laborers. Such conduct oc-
curred, according to the complaint, at times when Laborers
did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee James E.
Harper because he refused to become a member of Laborers.
Respondent filed an answer denying the essential allegations
in the complaint. The General Counsel and Laborers filed
briefs in this case; the Respondent did not.1
Based on the testimony of the witnesses, and my observa-
tion of their demeanor while testifying, as well as the docu-
mentary evidence, the briefs, and the entire record herein, I
make the following2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in pro-
viding building maintenance services, has its principal place
of business in Glassboro, New Jersey. During a representa-
tive 1-year period, Respondent provided services valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside New
Jersey. Accordingly, I find, as Respondent admits, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Laborers and Charging Party (Teamsters) are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
673A TO Z MAINTENANCE CORP.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Laborers and Bechtel Construction, Inc. were parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement covering custodial employ-
ees working for Bechtel at the Philadelphia Electric Com-
pany (PECO) nuclear power facility in Limerick, Pennsyl-
vania. The agreement, which, by its terms, covered ‘‘all cus-
todial services . . . assigned by [PECO] to Bechtel,’’ was in
effect through early July 1990, the last point at which Bech-
tel had custodial employees at the Limerick site. The record
is unclear as to the extent of Bechtel’s custodial work. For
example, it does not appear that Bechtel was assigned custo-
dial work in the so-called power block area where radio-
active material was present. However, documentary evidence
reveals that about 24 employees worked at the site under the
Laborers-Bechtel contract in June 1990. Some worked only
part of the month and it is unclear if any of these was a su-
pervisor.
In April 1990, PECO awarded Respondent two contracts
to provide custodial services at the Limerick facility. They
were based on Respondent paying union-scale wages and
benefits. One of the contracts was for general housekeeping
work in secured and unsecured buildings and grounds outside
the power block. This apparently covered the work pre-
viously done by Bechtel. The second contract was for custo-
dial work in the power block area. The latter required a spe-
cial status for employment and access. The custodial duties
under the two contracts were ‘‘absolutely, totally’’ different,
according to the Respondent’s project manager, Lee Malone.
The power block contract was based on specific hours and
employment complement; it was anticipated that 12 employ-
ees would be employed under the contract. The general
housekeeping contract was based on a flat rate so that there
was some incentive to perform the work as efficiently as
possible with as few employees as possible; it was antici-
pated, however, that Respondent would need some 27 to 30
employees under this contract at full operation.
Respondent was to assume responsibility under both con-
tracts as of June 1, 1990, but there was some delay and it
did not begin general housekeeping work until June 11,
1990, and, even then, with a skeleton work force; it did not
assume responsibility for the power block work until Decem-
ber 1990. Until December, another company, ARC, was re-
sponsible for providing custodial services for the power
block. Nevertheless, when Respondent began hiring employ-
ees in June 1990, it did so with the intention of hiring people
for both its general housekeeping and power block work.
In late April or early May 1990, representatives of Labor-
ers and of Respondent met for preliminary discussions or ne-
gotiations. It was Respondent’s desire to hire at least some
of the Bechtel custodial employees already on site, and work
out an arrangement with Laborers. However, the discussions
centered on Laborers providing potential employees to the
Respondent. Malone was instructed by his superior, President
Sam Williams, to hire people who met PECO’s rather strin-
gent personnel requirements, which included preemployment
testing, security clearances, and drug screening. Malone was
to hire not only from those prospects suggested by Laborers,
but from other sources. Malone actually held job recruitment
seminars and hired most of his employees ‘‘off the street.’’
Malone testified that he was looking for a total of about 40
employees to work under both of Respondent’s contracts.
At about this time—actually some time in May—Laborers
agreed to provide a specific number of applicants to Re-
spondent and Laborers apparently submitted a list of names
to it. Since PECO had to be satisfied that any employees
hired met its qualifications, Respondent submitted the names
to PECO. It learned that none of the names submitted by La-
borers had such qualifications. This meant that these people
had never been qualified, or, if they had, they were either not
presently employed or had been offsite for a longer period
than permitted by PECO without requalification. As a result,
Respondent made arrangements with PECO and with Labor-
ers to have these people undertake whatever preemployment
testing was required. However, when the time came for the
testing, none of these people showed up at the appointed
time and date for the test. Respondent later learned that La-
borers refused to send its prospects to the testing location be-
cause it had not yet finalized a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Respondent.
Faced with an impending date for taking over at least the
housekeeping portion of the custodial work, Respondent un-
dertook to hire employees elsewhere. It hired its first group
of employees on June 11, 1990. All were new employees;
none had previously worked at the Limerick site. Because of
Respondent’s inability immediately to take over the custodial
work on June 1, there was some initial confusion on the site
as to who was performing this work. Apparently both Bech-
tel and PECO employees were also performing housekeeping
work at this time. In the few weeks after June 11, Respond-
ent hired other employees and by the end of the July 18,
1990 pay period, it had 14 or 16 employees at the Limerick
site, depending on whether two of them could be classified
as supervisors within the meaning of the Act. At this point
only two of these employees had previously worked for
Bechtel onsite. There was some turnover at this time and
PECO apparently relaxed its preemployment requirements so
that Respondent could hire first and qualify its employees
later.
At some point in June or July 1990—perhaps even before,
but by July 18, 1990, at the latest—Respondent granted rec-
ognition to Laborers as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its Limerick employees, although neither the unit nor
the circumstances of recognition are clear on this record.
Both the Respondent’s answer and Williams’ testimony con-
cede recognition at this point. Indeed, on July 17, 1990, Wil-
liams wrote Laborers Business Manager Daniel Woodall ad-
vising him of Respondent’s intent to sign a labor agreement
with Laborers, pending resolution of outstanding health and
welfare issues.
On October 24, 1990, Respondent and Laborers executed
a collective-bargaining agreement covering essentially the
same unit described in the Bechtel labor agreement. The
agreement contained a union-security clause.
From the time Respondent commenced its operations at
the Limerick site in mid-June 1990, until the late fall of
1990, its employees were unaware that Respondent had rec-
ognized Laborers to represent them. Indeed, Malone had in-
structed employees to find a union to represent them, based
on his understanding that Respondent’s contracts with PECO
provided for union scale. In the fall of 1990, Laborers’ rep-
resentatives attempted to bring some people on site appar-
674 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ently to be processed for hire by Respondent. It is unclear
whether officials of Respondent had been notified or ap-
proved of this, but Malone, not previously having been in-
formed, directed that these people, including the Laborers
representatives, leave the Limerick site. There is no evidence
that at this or any other relevant time Laborers represented
a majority or anything near a majority of the Respondent’s
work force at the Limerick site.
On October 29, 1990, Teamsters filed a representation pe-
tition with the Board seeking to represent Respondent’s cus-
todial employees at the Limerick site. A scheduled hearing
in that matter was indefinitely postponed on November 20,
1990.
Laborers thereafter initiated an internal proceeding against
Teamsters for infringing on its turf under article XX of the
AFL–CIO constitution. Ultimately, an umpire in this pro-
ceeding ruled that Teamsters had violated the constitution in
seeking representation rights which had not been waived or
abandoned by Laborers. Teamsters has not complied with
this ruling which apparently became final under the internal
procedures of the AFL–CIO.
As late as January 1991, Respondent’s Limerick employ-
ees were still confused about their union representation. On
January 23, 1991, Respondent’s president, Sam Williams, re-
sponded to a letter previously written to him by employee
Mark Windish in which Williams enclosed the applicable La-
borers bargaining agreement and answered questions posed
by Windish. It is clear from this letter that Respondent was
not then enforcing the Laborers contract which it had con-
cluded and entered into the previous October.
On July 3, 1991, Williams wrote a letter to employees
stating that Respondent had signed an agreement with Labor-
ers effective June 1, 1991, and that the agreement required
employees to join Laborers within 30 days. Williams testified
that he was thus informing his employees that the contract
he had signed in October of 1990—effective by its terms as
of June 1, 1990—was being put into effect as of June 1,
1991.
On July 22, 1991, two Laborers representatives met with
Respondent’s employees at the Limerick site. They reminded
the employees of the 30 day notice for joining the union and
payment of dues set forth in Williams’ July 3 letter. They
also stated that these requirements were set forth in the appli-
cable collective-bargaining agreement and that the agreement
was in effect and would be enforced.
The next day, July 23, Mark Windish met with President
Williams in a conference room at the Limerick site. Windish
sought clarification from Williams as to what would happen
to employees if they did not join Laborers within 30 days.
Williams stated that Windish should ‘‘advise the employees
to join [Laborers] within 30 days for job security reasons.’’
Williams and Windish then discussed other matters, includ-
ing the instant unfair labor practice proceeding, then sched-
uled for November 1991. Williams said that the hearing was
well-timed because, shortly thereafter, his PECO contract bid
would be renegotiated. Williams also said that he would pre-
fer that the employees ‘‘form a union amongst [themselves]
within the unit, because [Respondent] was a non-union
shop.’’ Windish told Williams that he would present this to
the employees but that he did not think there was ‘‘much of
a chance of that happening.’’
On August 2, 1991, two Laborers representatives returned
to Limerick to speak with employees. They said that they
had union authorization cards and dues-checkoff cards for
employees to sign. They also stated that the employees were
required to pay a $150 initiation fee. A few employees paid
the fee at this time, but most paid it in two installments after
their next paychecks. A number of employees submitted a
petition to Laborers stating that they were paying these mon-
eys under protest. Some also signed the cards and forms with
an indication that they were doing so under protest. In addi-
tion to assessments of 37 cents per hour, which have been
deducted by Respondent from employees’ paychecks since
September 11, 1991, the employees have been informed by
Laborers that they are required to pay dues of $33 per month
directly to Laborers.
Employee James Harper did not attend the August 2 meet-
ing. He met separately with officials of Laborers the next
week and was informed of his requirements under the con-
tract. Harper never signed an authorization card or a checkoff
form and he never paid an initiation fee to the Laborers. On
October 7, 1991, Harper received a letter from Respondent
terminating his employment because he had not joined La-
borers. Respondent concedes that it fired Harper because he
refused to join Laborers pursuant to the contractual union-se-
curity clause.
B. Discussion and Analysis
An employer violates Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act
by recognizing a minority union and by entering into, main-
taining, and enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement with
such a union. Moreover, if that agreement contains a union-
security clause requiring membership and the payment of
dues, the employer’s conduct described above also violates
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Ladies’ Garment Workers
Union (Bernhard-Altman) v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731 (1961);
AMA Leasing, 283 NLRB 1017, 1024 (1987); Human Devel-
opment Assn., 293 NLRB 1228 (1989).
The evidence herein clearly shows that, when Respondent
recognized Laborers in June or July 1990, Laborers did not
have the support or authorization of a majority of the em-
ployees in an appropriate unit. Such recognition was thus un-
lawful. In the context of this unlawful recognition, Respond-
ent’s subsequent conduct of entering into, maintaining, and
enforcing a bargaining agreement with Laborers, which also
contained a union-security clause, violated Section 8(a)(3),
(2), and (1) of the Act.
Respondent’s only even remotely plausible defense—ad-
vanced on its behalf by Laborers—is that it recognized La-
borers in furtherance of its obligation as a successor to Bech-
tel under the principles of NLRB v. Burns Security Services,
406 U.S. 272 (1972). This position has no merit. First of all,
Respondent’s custodial work at Limerick covered an area—
the power plant—which was not covered by Bechtel. Thus,
there was a significant difference between the unit covered
in the Laborers-Bechtel contract and that covered in the Re-
spondent’s unit of employees. Secondly, there was no clear
understanding that Respondent would hire all of the former
Bechtel employees. There is no evidence that Respondent
even talked with Bechtel officials or employees directly,
much less that it made such a hiring commitment. At most
Respondent agreed with Laborers to consider for employ-
ment a group of applicants submitted by Laborers, something
675A TO Z MAINTENANCE CORP.
3 It appears that Laborers did represent some of Bechtel’s construc-
tion employees at the Limerick site and perhaps it thought—erro-
neously, it turns out, that it could treat the custodial unit the same
way as it treated construction units.
4 The contention made by Laborers in its brief that Bechtel was
Respondent’s subcontractor in June and July 1990, and that its em-
ployees must be counted as Respondent’s has no basis in fact, on
this record, or in law.
5 Cascade contains, at 657 fn. 12, some good advice for employers
such as Respondent who may feel ‘‘caught in the middle’’ of a rep-
resentation dispute.
in the nature of a prehire agreement which is valid in the
construction industry, but not in the custodial industry in
which Respondent operated.3
Thirdly, and most importantly, Respondent did not actually
hire but two former Bechtel employees, well short of a ma-
jority of the work force at the time of recognition. Laborers
was itself responsible for not providing the potential employ-
ees it wanted hired for preemployment testing required by
PECO. And, indeed, it is not clear, on this record, that the
applicants it provided were former Bechtel employees, at
least former employees working for Bechtel at the time of
recognition. In any event, Respondent was forced to hire
from outside sources and a substantial majority of those hired
had no connection with either Bechtel or Laborers. Thus,
there was no successorship bargaining obligation under any
reading of Burns.4
Counsel for Laborers took the position at the hearing that
Respondent’s hiring in June and July 1990 was limited to
utilizing a temporary rather than a permanent work force.
This is contrary to the testimony of Lee Malone who said
he was hiring permanent employees. Moreover, the conten-
tion proves too much, for, if these were truly temporary em-
ployees, Respondent’s recognition would have been pre-
mature and unlawful for this reason alone. Indeed, since at
the time of recognition Respondent had yet to take over work
at the power plant and had hired less than half of its antici-
pated full complement of 40 employees, recognition was im-
properly premature on this ground whether the employes
were temporary or permanent. See Cascade General, 303
NLRB 656 (1991).5
Laborers also contends that the Board should stay its hand
in this case because the AFL–CIO favored it over Teamsters
as the appropriate bargaining agent of the employees. The
Board, however, has exclusive authority to resolve represen-
tation matters and it does not defer to private resolutions of
such matters. See Teamsters Local 814, 223 NLRB 527, 530
(1976). This is particularly so when the private resolution, as
here, contemplates a result contrary to established Board law.
Compare Laborers Local 60, 305 NLRB 762 (1991), a case,
unlike the instant case, which involved a jurisdictional dis-
pute.
It is uncontested that Respondent discharged employee
Harper for failing to join Laborers and abiding by the union-
security clause in the flawed contract. In the circumstances
of its unlawful enforcement of a contract with a minority
union, Respondent’s discharge of Harper was violative of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The complaint contains two separate allegations of 8(a)(1)
conduct attributed to Williams. One deals with his telling
Windish to tell other employees that the union-security pro-
visions of the contract would be enforced. The other deals
with soliciting Windish to encourage employees to form their
own union. The first is superfluous since Williams sent let-
ters to employees informing them of his intent to enforce the
contract, he actually did enforce the contract and such en-
forcement has been found to have been unlawful. This find-
ing subsumes any statements made in connection with such
enforcement. The second is based on an ambiguous con-
versation. I can make no sense out of what Williams alleg-
edly told Windish. He already had a contract with Laborers
which he intended to and did enforce. How he could say—
or employees could believe that he would say—that the em-
ployees had his green light to form their own union in these
circumstances is beyond my capacity to understand or ration-
ally explain. Nor can I see who was coerced or how. Since
these allegations add nothing to the real allegations in the
rest of the complaint, I shall dismiss them.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By recognizing Laborers Local 135 as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees at a time when
Laborers did not represent a majority of such employees, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
2. By entering into, maintaining, and enforcing a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Laborers Local 135 covering
its employees, which contains a union-security clause, at a
time when Laborers did not represent a valid majority of
such employees, and by specifically enforcing the union-se-
curity clause in such agreement, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3), (2), and (1) of the Act.
3. By discharging employee James Harper because he re-
fused to join Laborers Local 135 or pay dues and fees in ac-
cordance with provisions in an unlawful collective-bargaining
agreement, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
4. The violations set forth above are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Since Respondent has been found to have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct in
the future and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
I shall recommend that the Respondent (1) withdraw and
withhold recognition from Laborers Local 135 unless and
until it is certified as bargaining agent by the Board; (2)
cease maintaining or enforcing the agreement with Laborers
that it executed in October 1990; (3) reimburse all present
and former employees for moneys paid or withheld from
them for fees and dues to Laborers Local 135, with interest
computed as set forth in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987); (4) offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to employee James Harper to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings or benefits he
may have suffered because of the discrimination against him,
backpay to be computed in accordance with F. W. Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest computed in
accordance with New Horizons, supra.
676 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. l02.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. l02.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
7 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
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, A to Z Maintenance Corp., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Recognizing or dealing with Laborers Local 135 as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its custodial employees
working at PECO’s Limerick, Pennsylvania location, unless
and until Laborers Local 135 shall have been certified by the
Board as such exclusive bargaining representative.
(b) Maintaining or enforcing any portion of the contract
between it and Laborers Local 135 executed in October
1990, or any renewal, modification, supplement or extension
thereof, or giving effect to any dues-checkoff authorization
executed pursuant thereto, unless and until Laborers Local
135 shall have been certified by the Board and such agree-
ment has been validly entered into pursuant to such certifi-
cation.
(c) Discharging or discriminating in any way against em-
ployees because of their failure to engage in union activities
or to encourage or discourage union activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section
7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold any recognition from Laborers
Local 135 as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
custodial employees working at PECO’s Limerick, Pennsyl-
vania location, unless and until Laborers Local 135 shall
have been certified as such representative by the Board.
(b) Reimburse all present and former employees for mon-
eys paid by or withheld from them for initiation fees, dues,
hourly working payments, or other obligations of member-
ship in Laborers Local 135, with interest.
(c) Offer to James Harper immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to senior-
ity or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings and benefits he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this de-
cision.
(d) Expunge from its files any reference to the discharge
of James Harper and notify him, in writing, that this has
been done and that evidence of this unlawful action will not
be used as a basis for future personnel actions.
(e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records,
and all other records necessary to determine and analyze the
amounts due under the terms of this order.
(f) Post at its Limerick, Pennsylvania location copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’7 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
4, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of The United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT recognize or deal with Laborers Local 135
as the exclusive bargaining representative of our custodial
employees working at PECO’s Limerick, Pennsylvania loca-
tion, unless and until Laborers Local 135 shall have been
certified by the Board as such exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any portion of the con-
tract between us and Laborers Local 135 executed in October
1990, or any renewal, modification, supplement or extension
thereof, or give effect to any dues-checkoff authorization ex-
ecuted pursuant thereto, unless and until Laborers Local 135
shall have been certified by the Board and such agreement
has been validly entered into pursuant to such certification.
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate in any way
against employees because of their failure to engage in union
activities or to encourage or discourage union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section
7 rights.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold any recognition from La-
borers Local 135 as the exclusive bargaining representative
of our custodial employees working at PECO’s Limerick,
677A TO Z MAINTENANCE CORP.
Pennsylvania location, unless and until Laborers Local 135
shall have been certified as such representative by the Board.
WE WILL reimburse all present and former employees for
moneys paid by or withheld from them for initiation fees,
dues, hourly working payments, or other obligations of mem-
bership in Laborers Local 135, with interest.
WE WILL offer to James Harper immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to se-
niority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings and benefits
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him with interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the dis-
charge of James Harper and notify him, in writing, that this
has been done and that evidence of this unlawful action will
not be used as a basis for future personnel actions.
A TO Z MAINTENANCE CORP.