Art Bridges Auto Emporium South

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS 629
San Leandro Imports, d/b/a Art Bridges Auto
Emporium South and Automobile Salesmen's
Local 1095 Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO and Southern Alameda County
Auto Salesmen's Association, Party to the Con-
tract. Case 20-CA-4578
November 7, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On August 1, 1968, Trial Examiner Maurice
Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it 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 with a supporting brief and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
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 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 National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders
that the Respondent, San Leandro Imports, d/b/a Art
Bridges Auto Emporium South, Hayward, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
December 22, 1966, among the employees in a unit composed
of the four salesmen then employed by Respondent at its used
car lot in Hayward, California (hereafter referred to as South
Lot). The four employees voted for the Union, which was
certified on January 6, 1967.
On December 21, 1967, the Regional Director issued a
complaint' alleging that Respondent had violated Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by dominating the Union, by interfering with the
formation or administration of the Union, or by contributing
unlawful aid, assistance or other support to the Union.
Simultaneously, the Regional Director instituted a proceeding
to consider revocation of the Union's certification, and issued
an order consolidating such proceeding with that initiated by
the complaint. In that order, the Regional Director requested
that the Trial Examiner make recommendations as to the
validity and disposition of the Union's certification. In its
answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices. The pivotal issue is whether or not one Brett Holsten
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
The consolidated proceedings were heard on April 11,
1968, pursuant to due notice. Upon the entire record, my
observation of the witnesses, and consideration of the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS'
1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
Art Bridges is the president of five California corporations
which own and operate automobile dealerships in the San
Francisco Bay area, including Respondent which operates
South Lot, and another corporation which operates North Lot.
Prior to his employment at South Lot, Brett Holsten worked
as a salesman at North Lot. In May or June 1966, he was
transferred at his request to South Lot. At that time, the sales
manager of South Lot was one Cummings. About July 1,
1966, he was replaced by Holsten, but remained in Respond-
ent's employ at South Lot.3 In addition, two other salesmen,
Ponas and Luce, were then employed at that lot. By the last
week of November, 1966, Ponas and Cummings had left, and
Employee Childers had been transferred from North to South
Lot at Holsten's request.
On November 22, 1966, Local 1095, the Charging Party,
was picketing South Lot because the lot was kept open for
business on Sundays. Holsten testified that on that date,
Bridges gave him a piece of paper, which was introduced in
evidence, bearing the following information:
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner: On November
28, 1966, Southern Alameda County Auto Salesmen's Associa-
tion (hereafter called the Union) filed a petition for
certification as collective-bargaining representative of Respon-
dent's sales employees. Pursuant to an Agreement for Consent
Election approved December 14, 1966, an election was held on
I Based upon a charge filed on June 16, 1967, by Automobile
Salesmen's Local 1095, affiliated with Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO.
'No issue of commerce is presented . The complaint alleges and the
answer admits facts which , I find , establish that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's
answer further admits, and I find , that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
3 Holsten 's status as sales manager is discussed below.
173 NLRB No. 98
630 DECISIONS OF
Andrew Field
c/o Angell, Adams,
Gouchnauer & Holmes
200 Bush St., S.F.
981-1050
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He further testified that at the same time, Bridges said to him,
"This is a man that can help you form your own union", and
that "this was a good chance to get 1095 from picketing us on
Sunday." Bridges testified that he neither encouraged Holsten
to join Local 1095 nor to establish an independent union; that
Holsten later informed him that the employees had formed the
Union,' that he did not know Andrew Field; that on one
occasion when he answered the telephone at South Lot, the
caller identified himself as Andrew Field and asked for
Holsten; that Bridges wrote Field's name on a piece of paper
but did not include the firm name and address because Holsten
had just then entered the premises; and that he gave the paper
to Holsten.
On the same day, November 22, at Holsten's request,
Employee Daugherty was transferred from North to South
Lot. Next morning, November 23, 1966, Holsten met with
Employees Childers, Daugherty and Luce, proposed formation
of the Union, and explained that he thought they could
thereby obtain a good contract from Bridges and could stop
the picketing.' A few days thereafter, Holsten again urged the
salesmen to form their own union and they then went to the
law office of Andrew Field, with whom Holsten had made an
appointment. At Field's office, Holsten and Daugherty were
respectively elected president and secretary-treasurer of the
Union.
Shortly after Thanksgiving Day of 1966, Childers was
transferred back to North Lot at Holsten's request, and
Employee Whitfield requested and received a transfer from
North to South Lot. At the time of the transfer, Bridges told
the latter that "they [South Lot employees] were going to go
union and in order for [Whitfield] to work there [he] would
have to be a member of it."6
As noted, the Union filed its petition for certification on
November 28, 1966. On the day before the Board election
scheduled for December 22, 1966, Holsten met with
Daugherty, Luce and Whitfield, expressed his support of the
Union, and stated that he would protect their interests in floor
assignments and in signing a contract with Bridges. At the
election, four votes were cast for the Union.7 On or about
December 28, 1966, Bridges gave Holsten sample contracts to
study. Holsten discussed them with the Union's members, they
made certain changes, and several days later he returned them
to Bridges, who indicated that the changes seemed to be
satisfactory except in minor respects.
4Bridges testified that upon receiving such information , he called a
meeting of his South Lot salesmen , and angrily told them that their
actin was "unfair and unappreciative."
Luce testified that Holsten said they could obtain a contract at
least equal to that of Local 1095 and would be able to work Sundays
and nights , which included some of their best selling hours.
6Whitfield so testified. He also contradicted himself by testifying
that Bridges had merely told him that he had heard that the South Lot
employees were either going to join Local 1095 or form their own
The Union was certified on January 6, 1967.8 By letter
dated January 10, 1967, Holsten requested Bridges to enter
into negotiations, but received no answer. During February
Hess, a former employee, was rehired at South Lot. That day
Holsten told him in the presence of employees Daugherty,
Luce and Whitfield that he "would have to join" the Union.
By letter dated February 14, 1967, Holsten requested Bridges
to meet with him on February 19 to discuss a contract. A
meeting was not held until a week later, at which time they
discussed and reached agreement upon a pay raise for a lot
boy, and arranged for a further meeting on March 3, 1967. On
the latter date, Bridges and his public relations manager,
Kasgard, met with Holsten, who gave them certain written
proposed contract changes, and they discussed the renumer-
ation of the salesmen and the adequacy of Respondent's
medical plan. No permanent agreement was reached, but they
made a temporary agreement pending another meeting on
April 1, 1967. The meeting, however, was not held, for on or
about March 20, 1967, Bridges discharged Holsten. On cross
examination by Counsel for Respondent, Holsten testified as
follows:
Q. (By Mr. Murdock) Do you know whether or not your
discharge related to any problems arising out of these
negotiations that you were conducting as president of the
Southern Alameda County -
A. I felt they were.
Q. You felt that because you were representing the
salesmen's association that is why Mr. Bridges discharged
you?
A. Right.
Q. Did he indicate to you in any way that that was the
reason?
A. Yes.
His action on the 19th of February. He come in with a
frown on his face. He was nasty. The reason that he showed
there was because he answered my letter.
And his attitude on the 3rd of March-I think from the
19th he didn't say a word to me for three or four days.
Never called.
The 3rd of March I think his attitude was a stall. I think
right about then he decided to change managers.
Luce, Hess, and Whitfield all testified that they believed that
Holsten had faithfully and diligently represented the Union.
A few days after Holsten was fired, Bridges also discharged
Hess, Luce and Daugherty. Shortly prior to the discharges,
three new salesmen had been lured. Following the discharges,
Whitfield, the only member of the Union still employed at
South Lot, telephoned Attorney Field, asked him what to do,
was given advice, thereupon solicited and obtained member-
ship cards from the new employees, and was elected president
of the Union. Whitfield and the salesmen also discussed the
proposals relating to sales commissions that Holsten had
discussed in his negotiations with Bridges, expressed dissatis-
union , and that if they did either, Whitfield could decide whether or not
he wished to join. He finally admitted that such testimony was
inconsistent with his statement in a pre-hearing affidavit.
Presumably Holsten was one of the four.
8 About a week or two later, the picketing at South Lot ceased.
SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS
faction with them, and agreed upon terms to present to
Bridges. Whitfield then requested Bridges to meet with him,
they negotiated for about 2' hours, and on April 6, 1967,
they executed a collective-bargaining agreement containing a
union security provision. On a "couple" of occasions
thereafter, Whitfield discussed grievances with Bridges.
Whitfield later left South Lot, and subsequently worked at one
of Bridges' other corporations for several months. Upon his
return to South Lot, he resumed the presidency because
Employee Soulis, who had been elected president of the Union
in his place, felt that Whitfield "knew more about the Union,
how it ran, how it operated." Shortly prior to the hearing in
this proceeding, Whitfield resigned and another employee was
elected president.
B. Concluding Findings
The General Counsel contends that Holsten was a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act; that through
his conduct from and after December 17, 1966, the beginning
of the 10(b) period, Respondent unlawfully dominated and
assisted the Union; that despite Holsten's discharge and the
subsequent election of Whitfield, a rank-and-file employee, as
its new president, the Union did not lose its employer-
dominated character; that Respondent's execution of a
collective-bargaining agreement containing a union security
provision with such a dominated union constituted a further
act of unlawful assistance; and that a recommendation should
be made that the Union be disestablished and its certification
revoked.
Respondent contends that the record does not establish
that Holsten was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act;
that even if he were regarded as a supervisor, his conduct
between December 17, 1966, and his discharge on March 20,
1967, i.e. the only conduct which may be considered, did not
result in any unfair labor practice (1) because it was
economically advantageous to the salesman to loin the Union
rather than Local 1095 since representation by the latter
would prevent Sunday and night work and thus curtail their
income, and (2) because the record establishes that during his
negotiations with Respondent, Holsten vigorously represented
the Union and did not represent his employer.
I agree with the General Counsel.
1 I find that Holsten was a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act, based upon the following
considerations:
a. All sales of automobiles by salesmen required Holsten's
approval to be final. He helped salesmen consummate
agreements if they had difficulty. He also had sole authority to
purchase automobiles. I accord little weight to Bridges'
testimony that Holsten devoted 90 percent of his time selling
cars. Since Bridges was not present at South Lot a good part of
the time, it is questionable whether he knew how Holsten
divided his time. In any event, even if his estimate were
deemed accurate, it would not detract from Holsten's
supervisory status. Bridges, who is unquestionably a supervisor,
admittedly sells "a lot of cars" himself.
b. Holsten received written progress reports showing the
9Although Respondent 's brief asserts that Holsten never disciplined
anyone, the record merely shows that Bridges was not aware of
Holsten's disciplinary acts.
631
total gross sales of the salesmen, discussed their sales records
with each one, and either complimented or prodded him.
c. Holsten had joint authority with Bridges to hire and fire
employees at South Lot. Bridges gave contradictory testimony
regarding such authority, but he finally admitted that his
prehearing affidavit had correctly stated that such joint
authority existed. He further testified that Salesmen Hess,
Daugherty, Luce and Whitfield had no such authority, and
seemed puzzled that he should even be asked, on a
cross-examination, whether Hess had such authority. He also
admitted that after discussing the rehiring of Hess with the
latter and Holsten, he and Holsten both agreed that Hess
would return to work.
d. Holsten effectively recommended the transfer of sales-
men to and from South Lot. At his request, Childers was
transferred from North to South Lot in October 1966 and
back to North Lot in November, and Daugherty was
transferred from North to South Lot in the latter month.
Bridges gave contradictory testimony regarding the transfer of
Daugherty, stating variously that he did not think Holsten
requested the transfer, that Holsten might have, and that he
thought Holsten did.
e. The salesmen communicated with Holsten if they could
not report for work, expected to be late, or wished to leave
early. On occasion, he disciplined a salesman who was late,
either by an oral reprimand or by depriving him of selling time,
thereby causing him to lose possible sales.' Holsten also
exercised authority to grant leave to employees. Although
Bridges denied the existence of that authority and testified
that on one occasion he so told Holsten upon discovering that
the latter had given Luce 2 or 3 days off,' 0 Luce testified
without contradiction that the other salesmen were subse-
quently given time off.
f. Respondent correctly asserts that Holsten had no
authority to "write, prepare or place advertising." However, it
is admitted that Respondent's advertising agent regularly
requested Holsten to furnish him with a list of automobiles to
be advertised, and that the other salesmen were not so
consulted, except possibly when Holsten was on leave.
g. Respondent was a member of an independent auto-
mobile dealers' association which did not have a contract with
Local 1095, and whose members were open for business on
Sundays and at night. During the period from November 1966
through January 1967, while South Lot was picketed by Local
1095, Holsten was requested by Bridges on three occasions to
attend meetings of the Association, at which time the question
of Sunday and night closing was discussed.
h. Respondent admits in its brief that Holsten assisted in
certain supervisory sales, and Bridges testified that Holsten's
duties could be described "as coordinating the work of the
salesmen."
i. I reject Respondent's contention that one Chet Ulum was
the General Manager of South Lot and Holsten's immediate
superior, that Ulum participated in "conducting" sales
meetings, and that complaints about salesmen were first
referred to him. A reading of the record establishes that
Ulum's principal functions were selling insurance to auto
purchasers at both North and South Lot and approving
10Although the transcript refers to Hess, it would appear that the
salesman involved was Luce.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
customers' credit where sales were financed. Indeed, Bridges
himself testified that Ulum's title was General Manager "but"
that "he was the insurance and credit manager." He also
testified that when talking to customers, he identified Holsten
as the "sales" manager, although he described him as the "lead
salesman" to bank officials. Moreover, there is no evidence of
any specific instance in which Ulum exercised any supervision
over Holsten or in which he received and dealt with a customer
complaint. As for sales meetings, the record shows that Bridges
or Holsten called such meetings about once a week; that
Bridges was present about half the time; that when he was
present, he and Holsten presided jointly; that when he was not
there, Holsten presided; and that Ulum's participation at
meetings related primarily to matters involving financing and
insurance. Finally, in view of the contradictory and unreliable
character of some of the testimony given by Bridges and
Whitfield, as well as their demeanor and the somewhat evasive
nature of their testimony regarding the authority exercised by
Holsten and by Ulum, I do not credit such testimony.
2. Although Holsten carried out Bridges' suggestion that he
form the Union,' i their conduct in regard to its formation
took place before December 17, 1966, i.e. more than six
months prior to the filing of the charge. Accordingly, no unfair
labor practice finding is made with respect to the formation of
the Union. Ampex Corp., 168 NLRB No. 96. For the same
reason, no finding of a violation is made based on Bridges'
statement to Employee Whitfield, in November 1966, that he
would have to join the Union. However, the foregoing conduct
may be considered for background purposes to shed light on
the significance of conduct which took place subsequent to
December 17, 1966. N.L.R.B. v. Lundy Mfg. Co., 316 F.2d
921 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 375 U.S. 895; Seneca Plastics Inc.,
149 NLRB 320.
After the Union was formed and Holsten was elected its
president, he told its members, on the day before the Board
election held December 22, 1966, that he would protect their
interests vis-a-vis management in order to persuade them to
vote in favor of the Union. In February 1967, he told
Employee Hess that the latter had to join the Union.
Thereafter, he entered into contractual negotiations with
Bridges. Such conduct establishes that the Union was aided
and maintained by Respondent for the purpose of dealing with
it concerning terms and conditions of employment; and that
through Holsten, as a supervisor and as president of the Union,
Respondent exercised close and continuing control over the
Union's administration. I therefore find that Respondent
dominated and interfered with the administration of the
Union, and supported and assisted the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. Ampex Corp., supra;
Jansen Electronics Mfg., Inc., 153 NLRB 1555, Meyers Bros.,
of Missouri, Inc., 151 NLRB 889; Seneca Plastics, supra.
It is true, as Respondent points out, that the employees
believed that Holsten's representation of the Union was
faithful and diligent, and that there is evidence indicating that
Bridges discharged Holsten because of such representation.
However, such evidence demonstrates, not that the Union was
free of Respondent's domination, but the exact opposite, that
is, that Bridges would not tolerate a union which refused to
III do not credit Bridges' testimony that he did not encourage
Holsten to fo'm a union and did not write Attorney Field 's address on
the slip of paper which he gave to Holsten.
remain under this domination. But even apart from the motive
for Holsten's discharge, Respondent acted unlawfully in
bargaining with a supervisor as representative of the Union.
The dangers of having a supervisor participate in negotiations
on behalf of employees are too great to permit even the
opportunity for misuse of his position as a union negotiator.
Even where the supervisor does not control the negotiating
committee, the possibilities for subtly undermining the union's
bargaining position are great, and wrongdoing on his part is
extremely difficult to detect and prove. For these reasons, an
employer may not deal with a bargaining committee which
includes supervisory personnel. Nassau & Suffolk Contractors'
Assn., Inc., 118 NLRB 174; accord, N.L.R.B. v. Anchorage
Businessmen 's Assn., 289 F.2d 619 (C.A. 9); Powers Regulator
Co. v. N.L.R.B. 355 F.2d 506 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. Mt.
Clemens Metal Products Co. 287 F.2d 790 (C.A. 6);N.L.R.B.
v. Stow Mfg. Co., 217 F.2d 900 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 348 U.S.
964. As stated in the Stow case, "Collective bargaining
becomes a delusion and a snare if the employer, either directly
or indirectly, is allowed to sit on both sides of the bargaining
table." And in the Nassau & Suffolk case, the Board stated
that-
it is improper for supervisors, even those with predomi-
nantly union loyalty, to serve as negotiating representatives
of employees.
Despite the large measure of control exercised over
[supervisors] by the Union, [they] remain in part agents of
their employers with a resulting divided loyalty and
interests. Employees have the right to be represented in
collective-bargaining negotiations by individuals who have a
single-minded loyalty to their interests. Conversely, an
employer is under a duty to refrain from any action which
will interfere with that employee right and place him even
in slight degree on both sides of the bargaining table.
Nor does it he in Respondent's mouth to say that it was
economically advantageous to its employees to select the
Union as their bargaining representative. It may well be that if
the salesmen had been free of Respondent's domination, they
would have attempted to obtain higher sales commissions in
place of Sunday and night hours. It "is manifestly impossible
to say that greater benefits might not have been [sought] if
the freedom of choice of a bargaining representative had not
been interfered with." Virginia Electric and Power Co. v.
N.L.R.B., 319 U.S. 533, 544.
I further find that the discharge of Holsten was insufficient
to cleanse the Union of its dominated character. Whitfield,
who succeeded Holsten as president of the Unions z and who
negotiated and executed a collective-bargaining agreement with
Bridges, had been personally told by Bridges that he had to
join the Union, and was present when Holsten told the same
thing to Employee Hess. Moreover, the significance of
Holsten's dual role as supervisor and president of the Union
could not have been lost on him. In addition, it is not
unreasonable to believe that Holsten revealed to the em-
ployees, including Whitfield, his view that he had been
discharged because of his vigorous representation of the Union.
I accordingly conclude that any desire and intention on the
part of Whitfield to demonstrate independence in dealing with
12 Whitfield consulted the same attorney who had assisted Holsten in
forming the Union , then signed up the new employees, and was elected
by them.
SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS 633
Bridges on Union matters were effectively chilled. But even if
Whitfield's independence had not been affected, I would
nevertheless conclude that the dominated nature of the Union
was not purged by Holsten's discharge. Seneca Plastics, Inc.,
supra; Lawson Milk Co., 136 NLRB 538, mod. on other
grounds 317 F.2d 756 (C.A. 6). In Seneca, in which the
employer withdrew its appointees to the Union's negotiating
committee, the Board stated that "it is only by disestablishing
the dominated organization that they [employees] can be
given an opportunity freely to select a representative." That
language is a fortiori applicable here. In this connection, I note
that the Union charged no dues, had no expenses,' 3 and
engaged in little activity. 14
I find that at the time Respondent and the Union executed
their collective-bargaining agreement, the Union was still
dominated. Accordingly, I further find that the execution of
the agreement violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.' s
II. THE CERTIFICATION
Having found the Union is an employer-dominated labor
organization, and since it is recommended below that the
Union should be completely disestablished, it is recommended
that the certification issued to the Union in Case 20-RC-7298
be, rescinded and set aside. National Federation of Labor, Inc.,
160 NLRB 961.
III. THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
its unfair labor practices, and that it take certain affirmative
action, specified below, which I find necessary to remedy and
to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices.
Since Respondent has dominated and interfered with the
administration of the Union, I shall recommend that Respon-
dent withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish
the Union as the exclusive representative of any of Respon-
dent's employees for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, commissions, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of work. Ampex Corp., supra;
Jansen Electronics, supra; Seneca Plastics, supra. I shall further
recommend that Respondent cease giving effect to any
agreements, oral or written, made with Respondent: Provided,
however, that nothing herein shall require the Respondent to
vary or abandon any wage, commission, hour, seniority, or
other substantive feature of its relations with its employees
which the Respondent has established in the performance of
these agreements, or to prejudice the assertion of any rights
acquired by them thereunder. Grand Foundries, Inc., 151
NLRB 1170, enfd. 362 F.2d 702 (C.A. 8); Beiser Aviation
Corp., 135 NLRB 399.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By dominating and interfering with the administration
of the Union, and by contributing unlawful support and
assistance to the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of
the Union or of any other labor organization of its employees,
or contributing support to or assisting the Union or any other
labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing or in any manner dealing with the Union,
or any reorganization or successor thereof, as a representative
of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, commissions, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of work.
(c) Giving effect to any collective-bargaining agreements,
oral or written, made with the Union or any reorganization or
successor thereof: Provided, however, that nothing herein shall
require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wage,
commission, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its
relations with its employees which the Respondent has
established in the performance of these agreements, or to
prejudice the assertion of any rights acquired thereunder.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and
completely disestablish, the Union as the representative of any
of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, commissions,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) Post at its place of business in Hayward, California,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix .1116 Copies
of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by an
authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60
-
13On January 10, 1967, the law firm with which Andrew Field was
associated sent to Holsten , as representative of the Union , a bill for
$150 for legal services rendered in connection with the formation of the
Union, the election and certification , and the preparation of a proposed
collective -bargaining agreement. Holsten never paid the bill and
Whitfield never received another bill.
14Under Whitfield , the Union normally held meetings once a month
or once every other month , but there was no "set " day or time for
meetings . At meetings, which appear to have been short, the minutes of
the preceding meeting were read, the members were then asked whether'
they have any complaints , and these were discussed . According to
Whitfield, there have been only two or three minor complaints which
were disposed of by agreement with Bridges.
15 It is unnecessary to decide whether execution of the contract,
which contained a union-security provision , also violated Section
8(a)(3). Cf. Lunardi - Central Distributing Co., Inc., 161 NLRB 1443. A
violation of that section was not alleged in the complaint. In any event,
a finding of such a violation would not affect the remedy.
16 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 is 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."
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith."
17In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
the Association, and completely disestablish it, as the
bargaining representative of any of our employees for the
purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, commissions, hours of
employment, and other conditions of work.
WE WILL cease giving effect to any collective-bargaining
agreement, oral or written, made with the Union, provided,
however, that nothing herem requires us to vary or abandon
any wage, commission, hour, seniority, or other substantive
feature of our relations with our employees which we have
established in the performance of these agreements, or to
prejudice the assertion of any rights acquired by them
thereunder.
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 dominate or interfere with the admin-
istration of Southern Alameda County Auto Salesmen's
Association or of any other labor organization of our
employees, nor will we contribute unlawful support or
assistance to the Association or to any other labor
organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
SAN LEANDRO IMPORTS, d/b/a
ART BRIDGES AUTO
EMPORIUM SOUTH
(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, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California, Telephone
556-0335.