Fosdal Electric

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 85 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

FOSDAL ELECTRIC 85
tions from the application of the freeze rule to all musicians . Its interpretations, I
find, are not arbitrary within the meaning of the applicable precedents.
Upon the foregoing factual findings and conclusions , I come to the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Shield, Belloc, and Palmer are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act, and Martin M. Rubenstein is an agent
of Shield.
2. No other person involved herein is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Sectioir2( 6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Local 10 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
4. Neither Shield, its agent , Rubenstein, nor Local 10 has engaged or is engaging
in unfair labor practices as alleged in the consolidated complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I rec-
ommend that the consolidated complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Fritchof A. Fosdal and Adeline M. Fosdal , d/b/a Fosdal Electric
and Electrical Workers Union No. 494, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO . Case No. 30-CA-96.
June 18, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 8, 1965, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision
and a supporting 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 [Members Fanning, Brown, 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
Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.
i We correct the following inadvertent errors in section III, C, of the Trial Examiner's
Decision , which are relevant but do not affect the conclusions herein:
The employees signed union authorization cards on May 26 and not April 26 as in-
dicated in the first sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the last
paragraph . '1 _e union cards were signed by "Anderson and Granger" and not "Ander-
son and Mock" as indicated in the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph.
2 Unlike his colleagues , Member Brown believes it unnecessary and inappropriate to con-
sl ler any representations the Union 's solicitor may have made or what the employees may
have been told, since the employees ' signatures on the cards designating the Union as their
bargaining agent are sufficient to establish the majority status of the Union at the time
it requested recognition.
153 NLRB No. 2.
86 DECISIONS OF NATION AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondent Fritchof A. Fosclal and Adeline M. Fosdal, d/b/a Fos-
dal Electric, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board, for the Regional Director for Region 30 (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), issued a
complaint on September 25, 1964, against Fritchof A. Fosdal and Adeline M. Fosdal,
d/b/a Fosdal Electric, herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that
it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the commission
of any unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Waukesha, Wisconsin, on November 18,
1964, before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr. All parties were represented by
counsel and were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General
Counsel and the Respondent and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a partnership, maintains its office and place of business at Wau-
kesha, Wisconsin, where it is engaged as an electrical contractor in the performance
of electrical wiring, air-conditioning, refrigeration installation and servicing, and
appliance sales and service.
During the calendar year preceding the hearing herein, Respondent purchased and
received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from firms and enterprises
located within the State of Wisconsin, which firms and enterprises had received the
said goods and materials in interstate commerce directly from points outside the
State of Wisconsin.
The Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is and has been engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Electrical Workers Union No. 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
The Respondent's employees, having among themselves manifested an interest in
union representation, at their request met with a business representative of the
Charging Union, George Mock, on the evening of May 25, 1964, at a union hall in
Waukesha, Wisconsin. At this meeting, 7 of the 10 employees in the unit herein-
after found to be appropriate signed union authorization cards.
On the following day, May 26, Mock telephoned Fritchof A. Fosdal, a partner of
the Respondent, and advised him that "a majority of the men indicated an interest
in joining the union." 1 The parties thereupon agreed to and did meet at Fosdal's
I Testimony of Fosdal.
FOSDAL ELECTRIC 87
home that same afternoon . During the approximate half hour discussion which fol-
lowed, Mock "outlined, read and explained " 2 the current contract in effect between
the Union and the Milwaukee Electrical Contractors Association.3 Fosdal acknowl-
edges asking "detailed questions" concerning the matter under discussion. Mock
testified without contradiction that he finally asked Fosdal to sign the standard agree-
ment, inasmuch as a majority of the electricians had signed authorization cards and
had requested union representation. Fosdal replied that he would not sign the con-
tract at this time, that he would have to think it over. When Mock again attempted
to persuade Fosdal into signing the agreement, Fosdal refused, stating that, "I believe
I have a right to have an election." Mock thereupon reiterated that a majority of
the electricians had signed authorization cards and stated, with reference to the elec-
tion, that "we could probably save a lot of time by just going right into an agree-
ment." Fosdal again declined and the meeting thereupon terminated .4
John Zancanero, president of the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades
Council, testified that in the first week of June 1964 he called Fosdal and told him
the advantages of becoming a union contractor 5 When Fosdal asked what the total
gross cost would be, Zancanero said that he would get the information and call again.
Zancanero supplied this information in a call about a week later and at the same
time requested a meeting with Fosdal. Fosdal said that he would have to wait until
his auditor returned. Thereafter Zancanero made two additional calls to Fosdal,
both along the same line, with Fosdal finally stating that "he didn't have to meet,"
but that an "electrical agent" should be sent out to talk to the men. The last of
these conversations took place in the latter part of June.
In the meantime, as conceded by the Respondent in its answer to the General
Counsel's complaint, the Respondent engaged in the following conduct:
1. On about June 1, 1964, Respondent, by its agent, one Kannenberg,s met with
the employees and encouraged them to make known their "gripes."
2. On or about June 22, Respondent, by its agent, Kannenberg, discussed with its
employees their demands for improving wages, hours, and working conditions.
3. On about June 29, 1964, Respondent granted individual wage increases, addi-
tional vacation benefits, and group insurance benefits to its employees.
B. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges the appropriate unit to be as follows: All electricians and
electrician helpers employed by Respondent, exclusive of office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
Preliminarily it may be noted that: (1) Mock indicated to Fosdal at the May 26
meeting that the Union sought to represent the Respondent 's "electricians," 7 and
(2) Fosdal never raised a question as to the appropriateness of the unit as a reason
for refusing recognition and bargaining. At the hearing, however, the Respondent
took the position that three employees, whose status is discussed below, be included
in the unit. The General Counsel urges that they be excluded. Basically this pre-
sents the question as to whether the unit should be comprised of a so-called mainte-
nance and production unit or whether the unit should be confined to only those
electricians whom the Union seeks to represent.
As indicated by the total number of employees (10, excluding the clericals),
Respondent's shop is a small one. A part of its business includes the retail selling
of appliances at its store. Otherwise, its employees are engaged in electrical wiring,
a Testimony of Fosdal. There is no substantial dispute as to what transpired at this
meeting.
' It may be noted that Waukesha is located approximately 15 miles outside of Mil-
waukee The Respondent is not a member of any contractor's association
4 Mock testified that he had the signed union authorization cards with him at this meet-
ing but that Fosdal did not request to see them.
s Zancanero said he made this call upon being apprised by Mock that he had obtained
cards from Respondent's employees but that he "was having difficulty trying to work out
an agreement "
6 Respondent conceded at the hearing that Kannenberg acted as its agent in all matters
material hereto. The only other identification of Kannenberg in the record is that he is
a personal friend of Respondent employee Richard Crooks Crooks testified that he ar-
ranged the meeting between the employees and Kannenberg
7 The undisputed testimony of Mock.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appliance repair work , refrigeration work, and, to a lesser degree, plumbing and
welding. Electrical repair work is done in the shop and on the customers ' premises.
Fosdal testified that approximately only 10 percent of the Respondent 's electrical
wiring is done in new homes, the balance being of an industrial nature, this including
the rewiring of industrial machinery that has been moved.
With respect to the seven employees whom the General Counsel claims should be
confined to the unit , it is unrefuted that they spend approximately 90 percent of their
time in the performance of electrical work outside of the shop , the balance is spent
in repair work in the shop. As to the three employees under dispute , the record
reflects the following: Lewis Neverman is the oldest employee in seniority and has
more experience in electrical work than any of the others. While 10 percent of his
time is spent in performing electrical work outside the shop, he spends the balance
of his time in the performance of electrical repair work inside the shop. He also
waits on customers who come in for electrical wiring, but he is hourly paid as are all
the other employees . Thomas Fardy is as qualified an electrician as any of the
others whom the Union seeks to represent . However, his time is equally divided
between electrical work and refrigeration work. James Casamassa was hired in
February 1964 as a helper . In the past , most of his time has been spent in the shop
in the performance of stock and cleanup work . However, more recently he has
gone out with the electricians and gives them such assistance as they direct. While
not qualified to do electrical work, Fosdal testified that Casamassa is receiving in-
formal training along this line.
In view of the foregoing , I am persuaded that the only appropriate unit in this
situation is that of a basic production and maintenance unit. I so find. On the basis
of the record , it hardly can be contended that the electricians here constitute a true,
skilled craft unit. Not only is it apparent that these employees have never undergone
any apprenticeship training , but the record reveals that none of them so much as
hold an electrician 's license.
On the other hand, it is apparent that all of the employees here under considera-
tion are hourly paid and are subject to the same supervision , hours, and working
conditions . The fact that there is some degree of difference as to hours spent inside
or outside the shop, or that one of the employees spends some of his time on refrig-
eration work , is no basis for the exclusions sought by the General Counsel . Further,
it is a statutory mandate that the extent of organization shall not be controlling.8
Accordingly, I find that the appropriate unit is as follows: All production and main-
tenance employees , excluding office clerical employees , guards professional employ-
ees, and supervisors , as defined in the Act .9
C. The validity of the union authorization cards; majority status
As previously noted, 7 of the 10 employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
signed union authorization cards on April 26. The Respondent challenges the valid-
ity of these cards , particularly those signed by employees Robert Granger and Owen
Anderson , on the ground that these employees were led to believe that the only pur-
pose of the designations was to obtain an election . The cards in question state on
their face in pertinent part as follows:
I WANT AN NLRB ELECTION NOW: AUTHORIZATION
FOR REPRESENTATION
I authorize the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent
me in collective bargaining with my employer.
As indicated , the first sentence with reference to the election was set forth in bold
type , while that immediately below pertaining to bargaining directly with the
Employer was in small print.
It is undisputed that five of the employees met with Mock during the first part of
the evening and that each of them signed an authorization card at this time. With
respect to what he told these employees concerning the purpose of the cards, Mock,
who impressed me as a reliable witness, credibly testified as follows : "I told them
that we would ask them to sign these cards authorizing us to represent them and that
8 Section 9 ( a) (5).
9 The inclusion of the three employees in question is an insubstantial variance from the
unit requested and does not materially affect the composition of the unit. United Butchers
Abattoir, Inc, 123 NLRB 946; Delight Bakery , Inc, 145 NLRB 893;
Sabine Vending Co.,
Inc., Division of United Servomation Corporation, 147 NLRB 1010.
FOSDAL ELECTRIC 89
we would originally seek to negotiate a contract with Mr. Fosdal; and if he was not
willing to negotiate a contract, in view of the fact that we have a majority of the
employees represented by the signed cards, that we could then ask for an NLRB
election." Mock's testimony as aforesaid was substantially corroborated by employ-
ees Warren Mulkey and Paul Strong, both of whom were present at this time. Thus,
Mulkey testified that Mock told the employees that, "It [the card] was to be used as
an indication of interest to request a National Labor Relations Board election. It
was to be used as evidence of the men's interest to possibly settle without an election
that a contract could be settled or an agreement could be reached without an
election, but as to the order of the activities, I don't recall that he ever stated which
order they would go in." Strong testified, "He [Mock] told us that the cards repre-
sented giving the union the authorization to bargain with us . . ." and further, "He
did say that if we signed the cards, he would go and see Mr. Fosdal about signing
a contract . . . or . . . we could wait for a National Labor Relations Board hearing
and vote ...."
Employees Owen Anderson and Robert Granger arrived late and were not present
at the meeting described above. By the time they did arrive, Mock and the five
employees had repaired to a bar located in the same union hall. With the five
employees seated at the bar, Mock, Anderson, and Granger seated themselves at a
table located a few feet from the bar. As indicated, Anderson and Mock signed
cards at this time. With reference to the discussion which ensued prior to their sign-
ing, Anderson testified: "Mr. Mock-just a short resume of what he said went on
at the meeting previously and told us that the boys had signed some cards, and he
showed us a card and he wanted us to sign the card, too. And he explained to us
after some discussion that this card was entirely for to go and ask for an election,
that it was a form card, and that bargaining-as far as wages and hours, there was-
Mock said about bargaining for wages and hours-it was to go for an election, the way
I understood it at the time." Further, Anderson added, "And his (Mock's) answer
was that he could go to Mr. Fosdal and request an election ... go to the Board and
request an election." Granger testified as follows-"[We] was told what went on in
the meeting about wages and all the different things that the Union would pay, and
it was discussed. And then we were asked to sign the card. And Owen and myself
inquired about what that card meant, and we-were told that all it meant was giving
the National Labor Relations Board permission to hold an election at Fosdal Electric,
and those were Mock's own words." Concerning his discussion with these two
employees, Mock testified as follows: "I told them . these cards were merely
giving its authorization to represent them in collective bargaining and that we had
the signed authorization cards from the other employees that were present and that
with their signatures we could have a majority of the electricians in there, and then
we could go to Mr. Fosdal and try to negotiate an agreement; and failing that, we
could seek an election." Upon my observation of the witnesses, and whatever the
present recollections of Anderson and Granger, I credit the testimony of Mock to
the effect that he told these employees that the cards could be used for a dual purpose;
i.e., that the cards authorized the Union to bargain with the employer on the employ-
ees' behalf or that they could be submitted to the Board for the purpose of obtaining
an election . Accordingly, I find that the Union did not misrepresent the purpose of
the cards when it obtained these signatures. Moreover, and aside from what I have
found to be the oral representation to these employees, it is equally significant that
both Anderson and Granger conceded having read the card before signing. Each
card contained on its face an unambiguous authorization to bargain on behalf of the
Union 10 As the Board has held, this in itself is an additional reason for finding that
the Union did not misrepresent to the employees the effects of signing the union cards.
Anthony O. Grimaldi, d/b/a Superior Rambler, 150 NLRB 1264.11
In sum, I find that as of April 26, 1964, the Union, through its demonstrated valid
majority of 7 of the 10 employees in the appropriate bargaining unit , was the exclu-
1° It is clear that Anderson and Granger read this portion of the card, the smaller print
notwithstanding. Indeed, when Anderson was handed the card on cross-examination and
asked to read the second line (that pertaining to bargaining), Anderson responded, "I
know what it says. I don't have to read it to myself." Each of these employees, it may
be noted, completed 1 year of college education.
ll See also Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268, and Indiana Rayon Corpora-
tion, 151 NLRB 130. N.L R.B. v. Harold W. Koehler, et al., Partners, d/b/a Koehler's
Wholesale Restaurant Supply, 328 F. 2d 777 (C.A. 7), cited by the Respondent, is factually
distinguishable from the instant case.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sive representative of the employees in the said unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.12
D. Conclusions
The law is well established that an employer may in good faith insist upon a Board
election as proof of a Union's majority, but that it unlawfully refuses to bargain if
its insistence on such election is motivated not by any bona fide doubt as to a Union's
majority but rather by the rejection of the collective-bargaining principle or by a
desire to gain time within which to undermine the Union.13
In the instant situation, it is quite possible that, absent other circumstances, Fosdal
would have been within his rights in demanding an election when first broached by
Mock on May 26 But here the Respondent was not content to stand upon any such
right it may have had at that time. Rather, this is the classical situation where the
Respondent, confronted with a request to bargain, immediately engaged in a course
of conduct which quite obviously was designed to undermine the Union's majority
status. Thus, and as previously noted, the Respondent met with its employees on
June 1 and again on June 22 and on each of these occasions encouraged its employees
to make known their "gripes" and discussed with them their demands for improved
wages, hours, and working conditions.14 All this culminated when on June 29 the
Respondent, in manifest disregard of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, announced and
granted to its employees individual wage increases, an extra week of paid vacation,
and added insurance benefits. I have little difficulty in concluding that by the fore-
going conduct the Respondent conclusively demonstrated that its refusal to bargain
with the Union on and after May 26, 1964, was not the result of a good-faith doubt of
the Union's majority, but was in order to gain time to destroy that majority. Accord-
ingly, I find that the Union having demonstrated its majority, the Respondent by
refusing to recognize-or bargain with it violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
I further find that by dealing directly with the employees concerning their wages,
hours, and working conditions, and by unilaterally granting its employees economic
benefits, the Respondent acted in derogation of the Union's status as statutory bar-
gaining representative, and, therefore, further violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, which have been found
to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion 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
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union
as the representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recommended
that Respondent, upon request, bargain with the Union, and, in the event an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act
and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
12 Contrary to Respondent's assertion I find that Mock made a proper hargainine request
upon the Respondent during the course of hic meeting with Fosdal on May 26 Of course,
the Respondent was not obligated to sign or accept the standard contract which Mock
submitted during this meeting
18 Joy Silk Mills , Inc, 85 NLRB 1263, enfd 185 F 2d 732 (CAD C), cert denied 341
U.S. 914. See also Snow and Sons, 134 NLRB 709, and Cumberland Shoe Corporation,
supra.
14I regard It as Immaterial that employee Richard Crooks made arrangements for the
June 1 meeting with Respondent's agent, Kannenberg The record does not reflect the
circumstances of the June 22 meeting.
FOSDAL ELECTRIC 91
2. Electrical Workers Union No. 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent, excluding office
clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act.
4. At all times since May 26, 1964, the above labor organization has been, and
now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit, for
the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on May 26, 1964, and thereafter, to bargain with the above labor
organization, by dealing directly with its employees on June 1 and 22, 1964, con-
cerning terms and conditions of employment, and by unilaterally granting its employ-
ees economic benefits on June 29, 1964, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Fritchof A. Fosdal and Adeline M.
Fosdal, d/b/a Fosdal Electric, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Electrical Workers Union
No. 494, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all the production and maintenance employees,
excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
(b) Changing any term or condition of employment without first affording the
above-named Union a reasonable opportunity to bargain with respect thereto.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclu-
sive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid unit, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its place of business in Waukesha, Wisconsin, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 30, shall, after having been duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.16
I also recommend that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision and Recommended Order the Respondent notify the said Regional Director,
15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a De-
cision 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 de-
cree 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 is 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."
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in writing , that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize Electrical Workers Union No. 494, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT change any terms or conditions of employment without first
giving the above-named labor organization a reasonable opportunity to bargain
with us concerning any proposed change.
WE WILL NOT engage in individual bargaining with the employees in deroga-
tion of the exclusive bargaining status of the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage
in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment , and other conditions
of employment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding
in a signed agreement . The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees , excluding office clerical
employees , guards, professional employees , and supervisors , as defined in
the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization,
except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity
with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
FRITCHOF A. FOSDAL and ADELINE M. FOSDAL,
d/b/a FOSDAL ELECTRIC,
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, Second
Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee , Wisconsin, Tele-
phone No. 272-8600 , Extension 3860 , if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Challenge Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc. and International Union
of District 50, United Mine Workers of America . Case No.
8-CA-3608. Jenne 18,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1965, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
153 NLRB No. 18.