General Instrument Corporation, Amtote Systems Division

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1982

262 N.L.R.B. 1178 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Instrument Corporation, Amtote Systems
Division and Debra Lavalle and Donald H.
Lowe, Jr.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1501, AFL-CIO and Debra Lavalle and
Donald H. Lowe, Jr. Cases 39-CA-163, 39-
CA-417, 39-CB-55, and 39-CB-134
July 22, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On February 17, 1982, Administrative Law
Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1501, AFL-CIO, filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of' the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found that, at lo-
cations other than the Teletrack and Ohio Lottery
facilities in dispute, Respondent Employer violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by deducting
union dues and fees from employees' wages with-
out valid authorizations during the first 45 days of
employment, and that Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by accepting such
dues. Although ordering Respondents to cease and
desist from said unlawful conduct, the Administra-
tive Law Judge refused to order Respondents to
reimburse affected employees for such unlawfully
withheld moneys. He reasoned that reimbursement
was not warranted in this case because the affected
employees were covered by a contract containing
valid dues-checkoff and union-security clauses, and
there was no evidence that any employee was co-
erced into joining the Union or making payments
to it. We disagree.
In support of the recommended denial of reim-
bursement, the Administrative Law Judge cited
American Geriatric Enterprises, Inc., and its wholly-
owned subsidiary Harnilton Medical Convalescent
Center, Inc., 235 NLRB 1532 (1978), and Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Work-
ers, Local 601, AFL-CIO (Westinghouse Electric
262 NLRB No. 149
Corporation), 180 NLRB 1062 (1970). We find
those cases distinguishable from the instant case. In
the cited cases, the Board held that to order reim-
bursement of unlawfully checked off dues would
be a futile act, since the affected employees were at
all times obligated to remit dues and simply had
been denied their statutory right to decide on the
method of payment. Here, the employees affected
by the unlawful deductions were not subject to the
lawful union-security provisions of the contract
during the first 45 days of their employment and
therefore had no obligation to pay dues or fees
during that period, unless they voluntarily executed
checkoff authorization cards. Absent such authori-
zations, any sums deducted from employees' wages
during the first 45 days of employment and trans-
mitted to the Union must be reimbursed. Accord-
ingly, we shall order Respondents jointly and sev-
erally to reimburse employees for dues and fees un-
lawfully withheld without valid authorizations
during the first 45 days of employment.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that Respondent
General Instrument Corporation, Amtote Systems
Division, New Haven, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent In-
ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 1501, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraph A,2(c) and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Jointly and severally with said Respondent
Union reimburse, with interest, employees at all its
locations, other than the Ohio Lottery and Tele-
track facilities, for any dues and fees unlawfully
withheld without authorization from their pay
during the first 45 days of employment."
2. Insert the following as paragraph B,2(b) and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent
Amtote Systems reimburse, with interest, employ-
ees at all Amtote Systems locations, other than the
Ohio Lottery and Teletrack facilities, for any dues
and fees unlawfully withheld without authorization
from their pay during the first 45 days of employ-
' See, e.g., San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Campbell In-
dustries), 243 NLRB 147 (1979); Trico Products Corporation, 238 NLRB
1306 (1978); Guadalupe Carrot Packers. d/b/a Romar Carrot Company,
228 NLRB 369 (1977).
1178
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
ment, and accepted and retained by Respondent
Union."
3. Substitute the attached notices for those of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
hav: violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT contribute support and assist-
ance to International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 1501, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize the above-named
Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of any of our Ohio Lottery and Teletrack
employees unless and until said labor organiza-
tion shall have demonstrated its majority status
pursuant to a Board-conducted election among
said employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any of the
terms of the collective-bargaining agreement
of November 28, 1980, and the amendment to
an earlier agreement, dated September 27,
1979, between us and the above-named Union,
as well as any modifications, extensions or re-
newals thereof, insofar as they apply to the
Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees. How-
ever, nothing herein shall require us to vary or
abandon any wages, hours, or other substan-
tive terms of our relations with our Ohio Lot-
tery and Teletrack employees which have
been established in the performance of the
contract or to prejudice the assertion of any
rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT assist the above-named Union
by deducting from the wages of our employ-
ees, at any location, amounts equal to union
initiation fees and dues when such deductions
are not authorized by said employees through
checkoff authorizations.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them under
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recog-
nition from the above-named Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the Ohio
Lottery and Teletrack employees for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining unless and until
said labor organization shall have demonstrat-
ed its majority status pursuant to a Board-con-
ducted election among the Ohio Lottery and
Teletrack employees.
WE WILL jointly and severally with said
Union reimburse the Ohio Lottery and Tele-
track employees for any dues or initiation fees
or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant
to the aforesaid agreement or amendment or
any extension, renewal, modification, or sup-
plement thereof, or to any agreement super-
seding it, plus interest. Such reimbursement
shall not, however, extend to any employees
who may have voluntarily joined and been
members of the Union before September 27.
1979.
WE WILL jointly and severally with said
Union reimburse, with interest, employees at
all our locations, other than the Ohio Lottery
and Teletrack facilities, for any dues and fees
unlawfully withheld without authorization
from their pay during the first 45 days of em-
ployment.
WE WILL offer to Debra LaValle immediate
and full reinstatement to her former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed, and make her whole for any
loss of earnings, plus interest.
GENERAL INSTRUMEN- CORPORA-
TION, AMTO'TE SYSTEMS DIVISION
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELAT IONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent of the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack
employees of General Instrument Corporation,
Amtote Systems Division, unless and until we
have demonstrated our majority status pursu-
1179
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ant to a Board-conducted election among the
Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any terms of
the collective-bargaining agreement of Novem-
ber 28, 1980, and the amendment to an earlier
agreement, dated September 27, 1979, between
us and Amtote Systems, as well as any modifi-
cations, extension, or renewals thereof, insofar
as they apply to the Ohio Lottery and Tele-
track employees.
WE WILL NOT accept and retain moneys in
the amounts equal to union initiation fees and
dues which have been deducted from the pay
of Amtote Systems employees at any location
without their prior written authorization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Amtote
Systems reimburse Ohio Lottery and Teletrack
employees for any initiation fees or dues or
other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to
the aforesaid agreement or amendment or any
extension, renewal, modification or supplement
thereof, or to any agreement superseding it,
plus interest. Such reimbursement shall not,
however, extend to any employees who may
have voluntarily joined and been members of
this Union before September 27, 1979.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Amtote
Systems reimburse, with interest, employees at
all Amtote Systems locations, other than the
Ohio Lottery and Teletrack facilities, for any
dues and fees unlawfully withheld without au-
thorization from their pay during the first 45
days of employment, and accepted and re-
tained by us.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1501,
AFL-CIO
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on July 20 and 21, 1981, in Hart-
ford, Connecticut. The consolidated complaint herein al-
leges that Respondent Amtote Systems discriminated
against and discharged employee Debra LaValle for en-
gaging in protected concerted activity in violation of
Section 8(aXI) of the Act. It also alleges that Respond-
ent Amtote Systems violated Section 8(a)(3), (2), and (1)
of the Act by providing aid and assistance to Respondent
Union and by applying their existing collective-bargain-
ing agreement, including its recognition, dues, and union-
security clauses, to groups of employees who had not
given their uncoerced majority support to the Union,
and that Respondent Union violated Section 8(bXI )(A)
and (2) by accepting such aid and assistance and by also
extending the agreement to groups of employees who
had not given it uncoerced majority support. Respondent
Union denied the substantive allegations of the com-
plaint. Respondent Amtote Systems denied improperly
discharging LaValle, as well as the conclusory allega-
tions of the remainder of the complaint, but admitted
some of the underlying allegations of assistance to Re-
spondent Union. The General Counsel and Respondent
Union filed briefs.
Based on the entire record herein, including the testi-
mony of the witnesses and my observation of their de-
meanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
Respondent Amtote Systems is a division of General
Instrument Corporation, a Delaware corporation. It
maintains offices and places of business in New Haven,
Connecticut, and other locations in several States, where
it is engaged in the operation of off-track wagering facili-
ties, state lotteries, and related services. Its main Con-
necticut office is located at Mitchell Drive, New Haven,
Connecticut. It also has offices and places of business lo-
cated at Long Wharf Drive, New Haven, Connecticut
(herein called the Teletrack facility); Broadview Heights,
Ohio (herein called the Ohio Lottery); New York, New
York; Hunt Valley, Maryland; and Clifton, New Jersey.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 1980, Re-
spondent Amtote Systems, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, purchased and received at its
New Haven facilities products, goods, and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located
outside the State of Connecticut. Accordingly, I find, as
admitted by Respondent Amtote Systems, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Debra LaValle
Debra LaValle began working at Respondent Amtote
Systems' Teletrack facility when it opened in October
1979. She was an admissions clerk who sold tickets to
patrons entering the facility. She worked an average of
22 hours per week on the day shift. There were seven
admissions clerks on the day shift and seven others on
the night shift when LaValle was employed.
During her employment LaValle and her fellow work-
ers complained among themselves and to management
officials about working conditions. The admissions clerks
were not paid for about 5 weeks after they started work.
LaValle talked to day-shift Supervisor Ira Smith about
this problem. LaValle also talked to Harla Levitt, a fi-
!180
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
nancial officer with Respondent Amtote Systems, about
the problem. LaValle called several government agencies
about the paycheck delays and spoke to other employees
about her efforts. LaValle also complained to Smith and
Levitt about other job-related problems: the admissions
clerks worked very near the entrance to the facility and
in winter their work area was very cold, in part due to
the cold air coming in through the entrance. At times
the employees had to wear gloves on the job. LaValle
called another government agency about this problem.
She also complained to management officials about dirty
blazers which the admissions clerks were required to
wear and the failure of Respondent Amtote Systems to
pay certain benefits. Employee Doreen Blakeslee testified
that LaValle was the most vocal employee in addressing
these problems and that the rest of the employees fol-
lowed her lead.
On January 12, 1980, LaValle worked a full day and
was called into General Manager William Drew's office
at the end of the workday. He told her she would be ter-
minated because of poor evaluations from Smith and
Levitt stating that she had an "attitude problem with her
co-workers." She asked to see the evaluations but he re-
fused to show them to her. She denied the charges and
asked Drew to speak to her coworkers to ascertain the
truth of the charges. Drew said he would not do this but
advised LaValle to talk to Smith.
LaValle later spoke to Smith. Smith said his evaluation
of her was the same as one he had written for another
employee who had been promoted. He did not mention
an attitude problem although he did accuse her of defi-
ciencies in her accounts. Smith had never before
warned LaValle of any attitude problems or any other
deficiencies in her work. Smith did not testify in this
proceeding so LaValle's testimony set forth above con-
cerning her relationship and conversation with Smith is
uncontradicted.
Drew's testimony about the discharge conversation ba-
sically corroborated LaValle's except that he denied tell-
ing her that her attitude problem was limited to relation-
ships with coworkers. His expressed concern was reports
he had received that LaValle was passing on her job-re-
lated complaints to customers. Harla Levitt testified that
she twice saw LaValle complaining to customers, on one
occasion about her paycheck and the other about her
dirty blazer, and that she told LaValle to talk to her
about these problems rather than to customers. She testi-
fied that she reported these incidents to Drew at the time
they occurred and suggested he mention them to Ira
Smith. According to uncontradicted testimony, neither
Smith nor Drew talked to LaValle about these specifics
or warned her that speaking to customers about her job
complaints was objectionable or job threatening.
The testimony of Drew is rendered somewhat less
than reliable because it conflicts both with Levitt's testi-
mony and documentary evidence. Thus, Drew testified
I This apparently was a reference to an earlier conversation between
L.aValle and Levitt. Levitt had told employees that they would have to
personally reimburse Respondent Amtote Systems for shortages in their
cashboxes. LaValle, in protests, sarcastically asked whether they could
keep overages. Smith's reference to this incident suggests an animus to-
wards LaValle for her protests against working conditions.
that Smith, not Levitt, had told him LaValle had com-
plained to customers. He himself had never seen LaValle
talking to customers. He did not elaborate on his alleged
conversation with Smith or testify that he told Smith to
warn LaValle that this was wrong. Moreover, in Re-
spondent Amtote Systems' report to the unemployment
compensation office, it stated clearly that LaValle was
fired for her attitude towards her "job, customers & co-
workers" (emphasis supplied). The latter was emphatical-
ly denied by Drew. In these circumstances, I find and
conclude that Drew and Levitt attempted, in their testi-
mony, to conceal their concern over LaValle's job-relat-
ed complaints to management by trying to emphasize
their alleged concern over her repeating these complaints
to customers.
Respondent Amtote Systems admits in its answer to
the complaint that LaValle was engaged in protected
concerted activity when she made her job-related com-
plaints, but it denies that it fired her for this reason. I
find that Respondent Amtote Systems did indeed fire La-
Valle for engaging in protected concerted activity. She
was the most active protester of the employees on a
whole range of job-related complaints, and, according to
uncontradicted testimony, on the day of her discharge,
Ira Smith informed another employee, Doreen Blakeslee,
that LaValle was "an instigator, a loud mouth. She start-
ed all the trouble, and was a very cold person and criti-
cal of everyone." It was also uncontradicted that La-
Valle met with Levitt and Respondent Amtote Systems'
comptroller, Steve Sharlor, in Levitt's office and told
them that she had called government agencies and that it
was against the law for Respondent Amtote Systems to
hold back employee pay. Clearly, in these circumstances,
the General Counsel has established a prima facie case of
discrimination based on LaValle's protected concerted
activity.
Respondent Amtote Systems has not rebutted the evi-
dence submitted by the General Counsel. As I have indi-
cated above, Respondent Amtote Systems witnesses
were not credible in their contentions that they were
concerned only with LaValle's complaints to customers.
There is absolutely no evidence of her "attitude problem
with co-workers," the reason offered by Respondent
Amtote Systems for the termination. Indeed, it appears
to have been a euphemism for LaValle's protected con-
certed activity in view of employee Blakeslee's testimony
that Ira Smith accused LaValle of being "an instigator"
and "a loud mouth" on the day of LaValle's discharge.
Finally, even if LaValle had complained about her work-
related problems to customers on two occasions, as
Levitt testified, and assuming, arguendo, that Respondent
Amtote Systems terminated her for this reason, such
conduct was simply incidental to her internal complaints
to management and not so improper as to remove her
overall conduct from the protection of the Act. There
were no rules against talking to customers, no disruption
took place, and LaValle's comments were truthful. In
these circumstances, Respondent Amtote Systems has
not shown that LaValle would have been terminated
even in the absence of her protected concerted activ;ty.
1181
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The Bargaining Relationship of the Parties
Respondent Amtote Systems provides equipment,
maintenance, and computer services for state off-track
betting and lottery operations. 2 The machine mainte-
nance personnel employed by Amtote Systems at loca-
tions in New York, New Jersey, and Maryland had been
covered by a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union for several years. On October 23, 1978, after a
Board-conducted election, the Union was certified to
represent computer operators and related personnel at
Amtote Systems' locations in New Haven, Connecticut;
Hunt Valley, Maryland; New York City; and Clifton,
New Jersey. Following the certification, on December
20, 1978, Amtote Systems and the Union executed a col-
lective-bargaining agreement covering the maintenance-
personnel and the newly certified unit. The agreement
contains a lawful provision requiring employees to join
the Union within 15 days following the 30th day of their
employment. There is also a provision permitting the de-
duction of dues and initiation fees from the wages of em-
ployees provided they deliver a proper written assign-
ment for such deduction.
On September 27, 1979, Amtote Systems and the
Union amended their contract to add new employees at
Broadview Heights, Ohio (Ohio Lottery), and at Amtote
Systems' New Haven Teletrack facility. With respect to
the Teletrack facility, the amendment listed some job
classifications which were outside those specifically men-
tioned or covered in the previous agreement and set
forth wage rates for those classifications. The new job
classifications included projection, videotape and audio
engineers, as well as admissions clerks.
At the time of the amendment, Amtote Systems had
been awarded a contract with the State of Ohio to pro-
vide and maintain equipment for a lottery. But the Ohio
Lottery did not become fully operational until April
1980. The New Haven Teletrack facility opened on or
about October 26, 1979, but, at the time of the amend-
ment, there were no employees assigned to the facility.
On November 20, 1980, the parties signed a new
agreement, which expires on June 1, 1983, essentially in-
corporating the above amendments and including the
same union dues and security clause as was contained in
the 1978 agreement.
C. Alleged Unlawful Recognition and Assistance of the
Union by Amtote Systems in Connection With Newly
Hired Employees at Teletrack and the Ohio Lottery
Amtote Systems admitted it provided certain specifi-
cally alleged forms of assistance to the Union in connec-
tion with its Teletrack and Ohio Lottery operations on
and after September 27, 1979. Thus, it admitted that it
provided the Union with a room to meet with employees
at the Teletrack facility and paid the employees for time
spent at the meeting. It also admitted that-at both Tele-
track and the Ohio Lottery-it solicited newly hired em-
ployees to sign the Union's dues-checkoff authorization
I Another division of General Instrument Corporation, Amtote Com-
pany, is responsible for on-track wagering operations. Amtote Company's
employees are covered by a separate bargaining agreement and are also
represented by Respondent Union.
and membership applications. It also admitted that it re-
quired employees at these facilities to pay dues and initi-
ation fees to the Union which were withheld from the
wages of employees and paid to the Union, notwith-
standing the absence of valid authorizations from em-
ployees. Amtote Systems applied the union-security and
dues-checkoff provisions of the existing agreement to Te-
letrack and the Ohio Lottery. Teletrack employees and
officials of both Respondents confirmed that this type of
assistance was provided to the Union at least at the Tele-
track and Ohio Lottery facilities.
In its brief, the Union does not really dispute the
above, except that it argues that a single meeting on an
employer's premises is insufficient "without more" to
show assistance, that no evidence was shown to establish
assistance at the Ohio Lottery, and that dues deducted
from certain admissions clerks at Teletrack were re-
turned. The Union's arguments are unpersuasive insofar
as they apply to Teletrack and the Ohio Lottery. Re-
spondent Amtote Systems' role in facilitating attendance
at the union meeting did not stand alone. It was part and
parcel of the overall attempt by both Respondents to
apply the existing agreement to the Ohio Lottery and
Teletrack employees. The fact that some dues were reim-
bursed is no answer to the fact that dues were collected
prematurely and by virtue of the assistance of Amtote
Systems. And, finally, Respondent Amtote Systems ad-
mitted its conduct at the Ohio Lottery and no contrary
evidence was presented. Indeed, Union President Dion
Guthrie conceded that, by agreement between Amtote
Systems and the Union, Amtote Systems handed out
"payroll deduction cards and Union obligation cards."
Based upon the admissions of the parties and the evi-
dence in support thereof, set forth above, I find that the
Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
employees at the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack. Undisput-
ed evidence establishes that Amtote Systems and the
Union sought to apply to those employees the terms of
its existing agreement, including the recognition, dues,
and union-security provisions thereof. Respondent
Amtote System's acts of assistance were undertaken pur-
suant to its recognition of the Union at Teletrack and
Ohio Lottery by virtue of the contract amendment of the
parties dated September 27, 1979. Such conduct by
Amtote Systems and the Union's acceptance of and ac-
quiescence in such conduct is unlawful unless the Tele-
track and Ohio Lottery facilities were lawfully covered
by the existing agreement. See Melbet Jewelry Co., Inc.., et
al., 180 NLRB 107 (1969).
The Union contends that the Ohio Lottery and Tele-
track were lawful accretions to the existing unit and
therefore there was no need to establish its uncoerced
majority status before recognition. The standard for find-
ing an accretion was set forth by the Board in Melbet
Jewelry Co, supra. In that case, the Board held that an ac-
cretion will be found only if the units sought to be ac-
creted cannot be determined to be separate appropriate
units. As the Board stated:
We will not . . . under the guise of accretion,
compel a group of employees, who may constitute a
separate appropriate unit, to be included in an over-
1182
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
all unit without allowing those employees the op-
portunity of expressing their preference in a secret
election or by some other evidence that they wish
to authorize the union to represent them. [180
NLRB at 110.]
Factors considered by the Board in determining whether
there has been an accretion include the frequency of in-
terchange of employees, the degree of common supervi-
sion, integration of operations, the similarity of job classi-
fications and duties, geographic proximity, and bargain-
ing history. See, in addition to Melbet Jewelry Co., supra,
Combustion Engineering, Inc., 195 NLRB 909, 912 (1972);
Meijer, Inc., d/b/a Mei/er's Thrifty Acres, 222 NLRB 18,
24-26 (1976).
Applying the above authorities and principles to the
instant case, I find that Teletrack and the Ohio Lottery
could indeed be found to be separate appropriate units
and thus they are not to be considered accretions to an
existing unit without affording employees working at
those facilities an opportunity to select or reject the
Union.
The amount of employee interchange between the ex-
isting unit and the new facilities does not require that
they be accreted to the existing unit. The transfers be-
tween other Amtote Systems facilities and the Ohio Lot-
tery are minimal. Only 1 of the 37 current Ohio Lottery
employees transferred from another Amtote Systems fa-
cility and there is no evidence of any transfers in the
other direction. There is no evidence of transfers be-
tween Teletrack and other Amtote Systems facilities
except for the Mitchell Drive facility. Transfers between
Mitchell Drive and Teletrack are understandably greater
because both facilities are in the same city. But even
these do not obliterate the separation of these facilities.
Only 3 of the 31 employees originally assigned to the Te-
letrack facility were transferred from Mitchell Drive.
According to Amtote Systems' group manager for
human resources, John Monahan, there have been no
transfers since the opening of Teletrack. According to
Union Steward Louie Severino, there have been three
transfers from Mitchell Drive to Teletrack and two the
other way. In addition, it appears that three or four
other service technicians rotate between Teletrack and
Mitchell Drive. They service some of the Teletrack
equipment but they report to, and are supervised by, per-
sonnel at Mitchell Drive.
The Union argues that, during the startup operations
at both facilities, numerous of its members worked at the
Ohio Lottery and Teletrack. This does not constitute
evidence of an interchange of employees. Most of these
employees ale employed by Amtote Company, a sepa-
rate division from Amtote Systems; they were perma-
nently assigned to their home facility, primarily Hunt
Valley. Maryland, and worked only temporarily at the
new facilities in order to make sure that the newly in-
stalled machinery worked properly. In addition, many of
these personnel, especially those doing the training of
employees, were management or supervisory officials.
The two new facilities are separately supervised. The
Ohio Lottery is organized as a separate and distinct unit
from the other Amtote Systems facilities. It is also sepa-
rately supervised. There is no evidence of centralized
control of labor relations. Teletrack is also separately su-
pervised with its manager reporting to the manager of
Connecticut operations.
The degree of integration of the new facilities with ex-
isting Amtote Systems operations does not obliterate the
separate identity of the new facilities. The Ohio Lottery
operation is based on a contract with the State of Ohio.
If that contract were severed there would be no effect
on the other facilities. If New York or New Jersey con-
tracts were severed, the Ohio Lottery would still func-
tion. The Teletrack facility has a bit more of a relation-
ship with Mitchell Drive because its ticket-issuing ma-
chines are tied into the computer at Mitchell Drive. The
odds given for a wager made at Teletrack are the same
as those at its other off-betting parlors in Connecticut.
To a certain extent, Teletrack is another off-track betting
parlor. However, it is more than that. It is a separate in-
tegrated operation of its own which was spawned by
separate negotiations between the State of Connecticut
and Amtote Systems. Separate admission is required and
patrons view a 4-1/2-hour film of racing, interrupted by
nine live 2-minute races brought in by microwave. Pa-
trons can bet on the races and eat dinner or have refresh-
ments during their stay. Thus, in some respects, Tele-
track is closer to the on-track operations of Amtote
Company than the off-track and lottery operations of
Amtote Systems. Finally, the Mitchell Drive facility
could and did exist before Teletrack and it continues to
provide services for the remainder of the Connecticut
off-track betting parlors.
Most significantly with respect to Teletrack, its unique
character requires a different mix of job classifications
than exist elsewhere in Amtote Systems. Projectionists
and nonskilled admissions clerks are new kinds of em-
ployees for Amtote Systems. Indeed, the admissions
clerks are paid much less than, and have no contact
with, the other employees at Teletrack. Moreover, even
at the Ohio Lottery where there is a similarity in job
classifications and duties to jobs elsewhere, the equip-
ment used for the Ohio Lottery represents a totally new
generation of equipment, and, according to an Amtote
Systems' official, employees from its other facilities could
not easily operate the Ohio Lottery equipment.
The Ohio Lottery facility is, of course, geographically
separate from the rest of the Amtote Systems facilities.
Although Teletrack is in the same city as, and a short
distance from, the Mitchell Drive facility, it is some dis-
tance from the other facilities in Maryland and New
York and New Jersey. In view of Teletrack's uniqueness
in other respects, its geographical proximity to Mitchell
Drive does not require that it not be considered a sepa-
rate appropriate unit.
The bargaining history in this case is inconclusive. It
appears that the parties did add some facilities to com-
prise an overall machine maintenance unit prior to 1978.
These additions, however, involved small numbers of
employees. When the parties wanted to add a new and
larger group of employees-the computer operators-to
the unit, an election was petitioned for and held. Nothing
1183
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the bargaining history of the parties requires a finding
of accretion.
In sum, the evidence herein persuasively and conclu-
sively shows that Teletrack and the Ohio Lottery can
and should be treated as separate appropriate units and
may not be accreted to the existing unit. Accordingly, I
find that, by unlawfully assisting and supporting the
Union and by unlawfully recognizing the Union and ex-
tending the dues and union-security provisions of its ex-
isting contract with the Union to the Ohio Lottery and
Teletrack employees, Amtote Systens violated Section
8(a)(l), (2), and (3) of the Act. I also find that, by acqui-
escing in the above conduct and by accepting recogni-
tion and extending the dues and union-security provi-
sions of the contract to the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack
employees, the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. See Melbet Jewelry Co., supra.
D. The Alleged Unlawful Dues Checkoff and Union
Authorization Procedures Utilized at Amtote Systems
Locations Other Than Teletrack and the Ohio Lottery
Which Were Lawfully Covered by the Existing
Bargaining Agreement
In this portion of the case, I consider only that part of
the General Counsel's complaint allegation which focus-
es on employees at Amtote Systems locations already
covered by lawful recognition, dues, and union-security
clauses. This discussion does not cover the Ohio Lottery
and Teletrack employees whose situation has been cov-
ered in part C of this Decision and who obviously were
coerced by Respondent's dues-checkoff and union au-
thorization procedure because a collective-bargaining
agreement was improperly extended to them without
their consent.
The General Counsel alleges that both Respondents
violated the Act by utilizing, after September 19, 1979, s
an unlawful dues-checkoff and union authorization pro-
cedure at all of its facilities, including those at which a
lawful union-security agreement was in force. The testi-
mony of Amtote Systems' group manager for human re-
sources, John Monahan, establishes that newly hired em-
ployees at all locations were given dues-checkoff au-
thorizations and union membership applications "as part
of the hiring practice to be signed." This is confirmed by
the testimony of Union President Dion Guthrie, who tes-
tified not only that the procedure covered all Amtote
Systems facilities but that the Union agreed to and acqui-
esced in the procedure. He testified as follows:
Well regardless where our new employees started
working, wherever it was or whatever location
Amtote Systems operated, there was always an
agreement between the Union and the Employer,
that the Employer when he handed out the packet
of all the different papers that he had to sign, medi-
cal, pension, etc., that they also handed out the pay-
roll deduction cards and Union obligation cards. 4
a This date was obviously picked because it covered a period within
the outer limits of Sec. 10(b) of the Act. The initial charge herein was
filed on March 19. 1980.
4 The rcomplaint allegation omitted two of the Amtote Systems loca-
tions from its coverage. However, it is clear from the testimony of repre-
In addition, the General Counsel alleges that Respond-
ent Amtote Systems violated the Act by actually deduct-
ing and transmitting to the Union dues and initiation fees
from the wages of its employees at all locations within
the first 45 days of their employment and that Respond-
ent Union violated the Act by accepting them. This alle-
gation also applies only to conduct occurring on and
after September 19, 1979, and refers to the union-security
provision in the parties' contract which gives employee a
grace period of 45 days from the beginning of their em-
ployment in order to join the Union.
It was stipulated by the parties that, in some cases,
after September 27, 1979, employees had their dues de-
ducted during the first 30 days of their employment,
"both with and without valid checkoffs." There is other
evidence concerning the dues-deduction procedure.
Union President Guthrie conceded that he knew dues
were collected from the first day of an employee's em-
ployment but that this procedure ended at some point
and is no longer in effect. On June 2, 1981, the Union
wrote Amtote Systems a letter asking it not to deduct
dues in the future until after 31 days of employment.
Amtote Systems responded in a letter from one of its of-
ficials stating its view that the dues-checkoff procedure
utilized "over the years was improper."
It is well settled that, even in the presence of a valid
dues-checkoff and union-security clause, an employer
gives unlawful assistance to an incumbent union under
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by deducting dues
from the wages of an employee in the absence of a valid
authorization from the employee, and the union, by ac-
cepting such dues, violates Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
See American Geriatric Enterprises, Inc., et a., 235 NLRB
1532, 1538 (1978), and cases there cited; Fieldston Ambu-
lance & Medical Systems, Ltd., 242 NLRB 185, 189
(1979), and cases there cited.
In the instant case, it is clear from the stipulation, its
context, and the evidence that Amtote Systems did
indeed deduct dues and fees from employees in the ab-
sence of valid authorizations that this was done with the
agreement and acquiescence of the Union and that the
Union accepted such dues and fees. Accordingly, I find,
in accordance with the authorities cited above and the
evidence herein, that Amtote Systems thereby violated
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act and that the Union
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).S
The General Counsel also seems to contend that find-
ings should be made that, even at locations covered by a
sentatives from both Respondents that the same procedure applied to all
facilities. The thrust of this portion of the complaint was that all of the
Amtote Systems locations were involved and the parties understood this
to be the case. Accordingly. my findings on this aspect cf the case shall
apply to all Amtote Systems' facilities covered by its agreement with the
Union.
I The Union contends that, although dues were deducted and paid to
the Union from the employee's first paycheck, they were credited pro-
spectively and an employee whose employment "was terminated early re-
ceived refunds," Apparently, according to the Union, the first month's
dues were applied to the third month and employees who left within the
probationary period were refunded the dues collected. This does not pro-
vide an adequate defense. Obviously, some employees who did not leave
may not have signed valid checkoff authorization and yet had dues and
fees deducted from their wages
1184
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
valid agreement, employees were forced to sign dues au-
thorization cards and union membership cards from the
first day they were employed and that these employees
were entitled to the full 45-day grace period permitted
by the contract within which to sign these documents.
From these proposed findings, the General Counsel
seems to argue that employees at all locations were
forced prematurely to join the Union and to pay dues
and that therefore dues should be reimbursed for this
period. I disagree because the evidence does not support
such findings or conclusions. There is no evidence that
employees were forced to join the Union or to sign dues
authorizations from the first day of their employment. It
is true that employees were given union membership and
dues authorization forms along with other preemploy-
ment forms which employees normally fill out when
they start a new job. However, nothing in the testimony
of Monahan or Guthrie supports a finding that these em-
ployees were forced to sign these forms. Monahan
simply testified, "[T]he forms were given out as part of
the hiring practice to be signed." Indeed, according to
the stipulation, some employees did not sign checkoffs.
Obviously, newly hired employees may desire to sign up
with an incumbent union immediately even though they
have 45 days within which to do so. In the absence of
specific evidence to the contrary, I find nothing coercive
in the procedure utilized by Respondents for new em-
ployees to sign union membership and dues authoriza-
tions in the face of otherwise lawful dues-checkoff and
union-security clauses. See Colin Service Systems, Inc.,
226 NLRB 70, 72 (1976); Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc., 157
NLRB 583, 587 (1966).
In his brief, the General Counsel seems to argue that
Monahan's testimony and Respondent Amtote Systems'
answer permit the inference that employees were re-
quired or coerced to sign the documents, as if the mere
use of these pejorative words imbues them with sub-
stance. I do not so read either Monahan's testimony or
the answer. I have already quoted Monahan's testimony.
It contains nothing about employees being forced or re-
quired to sign the documents. Amtote Systems' answer
to paragraph 17 of the complaint is less than lucid-and
Amtote Systems declined to file a brief-but it seems to
me fairly to deny subparagraph (a) which alleges that
Amtote Systems required and coerced newly hired em-
ployees at four named locations, including Teletrack and
the Ohio Lottery, to sign these documents. Moreover,
the remainder of the answer seems calculated not only to
question the allegation that the procedure "commenced"
on September 19, 1979 (Amtote Systems argued in a
June 1981 letter that this was a longtime practice), but
also to distinguish between the Teletrack and Ohio Lot-
tery employees, as to which the issue was basically the
legality of extending the recognition, dues, and union-se-
curity clauses of the existing agreement, and employees
at the remainder of its locations which were lawfully
covered by those clauses in the existing agreement. Fur-
thermore, Respondent Amtote Systems had no problem
with admitting to subpart (b) of paragraph 17 since it
had indeed deducted dues within the first 45 days of em-
ployment at all of its locations, including those lawfully
covered by the agreement. Although there is some ambi-
guity in the answer-perhaps due to a poorly drafted
complaint-I believe a fair reading of it, taken in con-
junction with the evidence on the point, establishes that
there was no concession that Amtote Systems required
or coerced employees to sign union membership and
dues authorization forms at locations other than Tele-
track and the Ohio Lottery. In any event, no employees
or supervisors from locations other than Teletrack or the
Ohio Lottery testified. In view of the ambiguity men-
tioned above and the absence of any specific testimony
on the issue, there is insufficient evidence to require a
finding that the signed membership cards and authoriza-
tions were not freely given even though they were given
well within the 45 days permitted by the contract and
they were handed out with other preemployment forms.
In sum, I find that both Respondents violated the Act
by actually deducting, collecting, and accepting dues and
fees to the extent that this was done-at any time-with-
out valid checkoff authorizations. I do not find that Re-
spondents violated the Act in any other respect by their
procedure of having union membership and dues authori-
zation cards handed out to employees to sign along with
other preemployment forms.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging employee Debra LaValle for engag-
ing in protected concerted activity, Respondent Amtote
Systems violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
2. By unlawfully assisting and supporting Respondent
Union and by unlawfully recognizing it and extending
the dues and union-security provisions of its collective-
bargaining agreement with Respondent Union to its Ohio
Lottery and Teletrack employees, Respondent Amtote
Systems has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act.
3. By acquiescing in Respondent Amtote Systems con-
duct set forth above and by accepting recognition and
extending the dues and union-security provisions of its
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent
Amtote Systems to the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack em-
ployees, Respondent Union has violated Section
8(bXl)(A) and (2) of the Act.
4. By deducting dues and initiation fees from the
wages of employees and transmitting them to Respond-
ent Union without valid authorizations for such deduc-
tions and dues being given by such employees, Respond-
ent Amtote Systems has violated Section 8(aX1) and (2)
of the Act.
5. By accepting dues and initiation fees deducted from
wages of employees without valid authorizations from
such employees, Respondent Union has violated Section
8(bXIXA) of the Act.
6. The above violations constitute unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondents have not otherwise violated the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Amtote Systems violated Section
8(aXl) and (2) of the Act by its assistance to and recog-
1185
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nition of the Union as bargaining representative of its Te-
letrack and Ohio Lottery employees and by extending
the coverage of its existing contract with the Union to
those employees, and that the Union, by acquiescing in
such conduct and by accepting recognition and extension
of the contract to the Teletrack and Ohio Lottery em-
ployees, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I shall
order both Respondents to cease and desist from said
violations of the Act, and to cease giving effect to their
agreement, insofar as it affects the Teletrack and Ohio
Lottery employees, without, however, requiring Amtote
Systems to vary any wage or other substantive features
established under the agreement. I shall also order that
Amtote Systems withdraw its recognition of the Union
as to the Teletrack and Ohio Lottery employees and that
the Union cease acting as bargaining representative of
said employees unless and until the Union's representa-
tive status has been established in a Board-conducted
election.
Having found violations of Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2)
of the Act in the unlawful extension of the dues and
union-security clause Respondents' agreement to the
Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees, I shall also order
that the employees of Teletrack and the Ohio Lottery be
reimbursed for dues and fees unlawfully exacted from
them with interest in accordance with Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Respondents are
jointly and severally liable for such reimbursement. See
Melbet Jewelry, Co., 180 NLRB at 110.
Having also found that Amtote Systems has, in some
cases, withheld dues and initiation fees from the wages of
employees who had not signed checkoff authorizations
and remitted same to the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and that the Union violated
Section 8(bXlXA) of the Act by accepting and retaining
such unlawfully obtained funds, I shall order that both
Respondents cease and desist from the conduct found un-
lawful. I shall not, however, order reimbursement of
dues collected from employees in such circumstances at
locations other than Teletrack and the Ohio Lottery, as
requested by the General Counsel. At all material times
the employees affected by such unlawful conduct were
covered by a valid dues-checkoff and union-security
clause, unlike the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees.
Moreover, there is no evidence that such employees,
unlike those at the Ohio Lottery and at Teletrack, were
coerced into joining the Union or into making payments
to the Union. See American Geriatric Enterprises, 235
NLRB at 1532, and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, Local 601 AFL-CIO (Wes-
tinghouse Electric Corporation), 180 NLRB 1062, 1063
(1970).
Finally, having also found that Amtote Systems un-
lawfully terminated employee Debra LaValle for engag-
ing in protected concerted activity in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall order it to cease and desist
from its unlawful conduct and to reinstate Debra La-
Valle to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, and to make her
whole for any loss of wages and other benefits suffered
by reason of the discrimination against her with backpay
and interest to be computed as set forth in F W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).6
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER7
A. Respondent General Instrument Corporation,
Amtote Systems Division, New Haven, Connecticut, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support and assistance to Respondent
Union or to any other labor organization of its employ-
ees.
(b) Recognizing Respondent Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of any of its Ohio Lottery or
Teletrack employees unless and until said labor organiza-
tion shall have demonstrated its majority status pursuant
to a Board-conducted election among said employees.
(c) Giving effect to any of the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement of November 28, 1980, and the
amendment to an earlier agreement dated September 27,
1979, between it and Respondent Union, as well as any
modifications, extensions, or renewals thereof, insofar as
they apply to the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees,
provided that nothing herein shall require Respondent
Amtote Systems to vary or abandon any wages, hours,
or other substantive terms of its relations with its Ohio
Lottery and Teletrack employees which have been estab-
lished in the performance of the agreement or to preju-
dice the assertion of any rights they may have thereun-
der.
(d) Assisting Respondent Union by deducting from the
wages of its employees, at any location, amounts equal to
union initiation fees and dues when such deductions are
i. ot authorized by said employees through checkoff au-
ttt ,rizations.
(e) Discharging or otherwise interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Re-
spondent Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining unless and until said
labor organization shall have demonstrated its majority
status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the
Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees.
a See, generally, Isis Plumbing d Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
1186
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
(b) Jointly and severally with said Respondent Union
reimburse the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees for
any dues or initiation fees or other moneys paid or
checked off pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or
amendment or any extension, renewal, modification, or
supplement thereof, or to any agreement superseding it,
plus interest, as set forth in the Remedy section of this
Decision. Such reimbursement shall not, however,
extend to any employees who may have voluntarily
joined and been members of Respondent Union before
September 27, 1979.
(c) Offer to Debra LaValle immediate and full rein-
statement to her former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make her whole for any loss of earnings in the manner
set forth in the Remedy section of this Decision.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports and all other documents nec-
essary and relevant to analyze and compute the amount
of backpay due under this Order.
(e) Post at all of its locations copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 39,
after being duly signed by Respondent Amtote Systems'
representative, shall be posted by Respondent Amtote
Systems' immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent Amtote Systems to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(f) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in paragraph (e) above, and as soon as
they are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of
Respondent Union's notice herein marked "Appendix B."
(g) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 1501, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining agent of Re-
spondent Amtote Systems' Ohio Lottery and Teletrack
employees unless and until said Union shall have demon-
strated its majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted
£ In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
election among the Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employ-
ees.
(b) Giving effect to any terms of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement of November 28, 1980, and the
amendment to an earlier agreement dated September 27,
1979, between it and Respondent Amtote Systems, as
well as any modifications, extensions, or renewals there-
of, insofar as they apply to the Ohio Lottery and Tele-
track employees.
(c) Accepting and retaining moneys in the amounts
equal to union initiation fees and dues which have been
deducted from the pay of Respondent Amtote Systems'
employees at any location without prior written authori-
zation from employees.
(d) In any like or related manner restraining and co-
ercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Amtote Sys-
tems reimburse Ohio Lottery and Teletrack employees
for any initiation fees or dues or other moneys paid or
checked off pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or
amendment or any extension, renewal, modification or
supplement thereof, or to any agreement superseding it,
plus interest, as set forth in the Remedy section of this
Decision. Such reimbursement shall not, however,
extend to any employees who may have voluntarily
joined and been members of Respondent Union before
September 27, 1979.
(b) Post in conspicuous places in its business office,
meeting halls, and places where notices to members are
customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 39, shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of Respond-
ent Union, be posted by Respondent Union immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent Union to ensure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Furnish the Regional Director signed copies of the
aforesaid notice for posting by Respondent Amtote Sys-
tems at all of its locations in places where notices are
customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director, shall, after being signed as in-
dicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director
for disposition by him.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
I See fn. 8, supra
1187