General Maintenance Service Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE CO., INC.,
General Maintenance Service Company, Inc. and Building
Service Employees Union, Local 82, affiliated with Serv-
ice Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Case
5-CA-4565
May 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On March 24, 1970, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief.' The General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision and the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examin-
er, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and
orders that Respondent, General Maintenance Service
Company, Inc., Washington, D.C., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the acion set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so
modified:
Following the last full paragraph in the Appendix
"Notice to All Employees," add the following:
WE WILL upon request bargain with the Union
in the aforesaid units and embody any understand-
ings reached in signed agreements.
' Respondent has also filed a motion requesting the case to be set
for oral argument before the Board. Since we believe that the record
and briefs adequately present the contentions of the parties, we deny
the motion.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
819
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter,
a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was
heard at Washington, D.C., on February 2, 1970, with
all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon
a complaint' issued by the General Counsel on December
24, 1969.2 The complaint, in substance, alleges that
General Maintenance Service Company, Inc., hereafter
referred to as Respondent or the Company, has engaged,
and continues to engage, in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing
to bargain collectively with the Union, as the lawfully
recognized bargaining representative of its employees,
after being timely notified of its intention to terminate
existing bargaining contracts and to negotiate new con-
tracts for buildings hereafter designated as units A and
B, since April 28, and for buildings designated as units
C, D, and E since August 13. Respondent in its duly
filed answer denied the appropriateness of all units
involved, the Union's exclusive representation of the
employees involved, the past bargaining relationships
with the Union in the units involved, and the timeliness
of the Union's notices of contract termination.
All parties were represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Comprehensive
and able briefs were received from the General Counsel
and Respondent and have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record" in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Respondent, at all times material herein, has been
a corporation duly organized under the laws of the
District of Columbia, having its principal office and
place of business in said District, where it is engaged
in custodial cleaning and related services in the Washing-
ton, D.C., area. In the course and conduct of its business
operations during the preceding 12 months, it has
received in excess of $100,000 for services performed
in the Washington, D.C., area. Respondent admits, and
I find, that at all times material herein, Respondent
has been engaged in commerce as an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
' Based upon a charge filed on November 17, 1969, by Building
Service Employees Union, Local 82, affiliated with Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to as the Union
2 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1969 unless otherwise noted
The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript
is granted as requested
182 NLRB No. 128
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material
herein, the Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
A. Background,
The alleged violations herein involve six buildings,
located in the District of Columbia, which are divided
into the'following five units:
Unit A consists of the Federal Bar Building at 1815
H Street and the Federal Bar Building West at 1819
H Street. The Union initially established its collective-
bargaining relationship for'this unit when it was granted
recognition by City Window Cleaning Company pursuant
to a card check. This company was thereafter succeeded
first by Barry Industries Cleaning Contractor and then
by Respondent in 1968 . Respondent executed a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Union for the period
July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969.
Unit B is the Brookings Institution office building
at 1775 Massachusetts Avenue. The Union first estab-
lished its collective-bargaining relationship for this unit
directly with Brookings in 1939 when it was located
on Jackson Place. Following its move to its present
location, the contract for the cleaning services was
given to Respondent, which entered into a collective-
bargaining relationship with the Union about 1964. Since
then Respondent has entered into about four collective-
bargaining agreements , the most recent covering the
period of July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969.
Unit C is the Riddell Building at 1730 K Street.
The Union first established its collective- bargaining rela-
tionship for this unit by certification in - 1964 ; when the
contractor was H. G. Smith Real Estate Company.
Respondent succeeded to the work in 1964 and since
then the parties have entered into about three collective-
bargaining contracts, the most recent covering the period
of October 15, 1967, to October 14, 1969.
Unit D is the Public National Bank office' building
at 1430 K Street. The Union first obtained its collective-
bargaining relationship for this unit in 1962 via recogni-
tion from Allied Maintenance Company of New York,
which was succeeded first by City Cleaning Company
about 1963, and then by Respondent about 1964. Since
then the parties have entered into three collective-bar-
gaining contracts, the most recent covering the period
of October 15, 1967, to October 14, 1969.
Unit E is the 1025 Vermont Avenue office building,
for which the Union initially established its collective-
bargaining relationship by recognition directly from
Respondent in 1964. Since then the parties have entered
into about three collective-bargaining contracts, the most
recent for the period October, 15, 1967, to October
14,1969.
Each of the Union's last collective- bargaining agree-
ments with Respondent contains a provision to the effect
that the agreements shall renew from year to year " unless
not less than sixty (60) days prior to an anniversary
date of this Agreement written notice to the contrary
is given by one party to the other."
B. The Facts
By letter of April 28, the Union notified Respondent
that its agreements for Units A and B expire on June
30 and requested a meeting to negotiate new agreements.
The letter was delivered on May 1. Receiving no response
from Respondent by the middle of June, Union President
Bailey unsuccessfully attempted to reach Respondent
President Sanders by telephone on' several occasions
to arrange a meeting to negotiate new agreements. About
the middle of July, Bailey finally contacted Sanders
and a meeting was set up for August 14. At this meeting
Bailey presented Sanders with a written proposal for
new agreements. The only change requested in the exist-
ing agreements was a demand for a 30-cent-an-hour
wage increase . Sanders begged off negotiating until his
partner, a Mr. Schools, returned from his vacation at
the end of August, claiming that the wage increase
would put him out of business. Bailey also informed
Sanders at this meeting that he had mailed a letter
on the previous day regarding a request to renegotiate
agreements with respect to units C, D, and E. Receiving
no response from Sanders by the early part of September,
Bailey again contacted him and was advised that a
meeting to negotiate a new agreement could not be
arranged because Mr. Schools was again unavailable
because he had been hospitalized. Several weeks later
and again not hearing from Sanders , Bailey reached
Sanders about October 21 and finally arranged a meeting
for November 4. At the start of this meeting Sanders
told Bailey that he had turned over all his labor-manage-
ment relations to his, attorney, Mr. Keiler, and' to, call
him to arrange for negotiations.'
Bailey thereupon contacted the union attorney, Mr.
Levine, who on November 6 wrote to Mr. Keiler request-
ing a meeting to negotiate new agreements between
the Union and Respondent. By letter of November
12, Mr. Keiler replied inquiring what matters were pend-
ing between the Union and Respondent and between
Red Coats' and the Union, and that on being so advised
he would reply if and when he would meet with Mr.
Levine. By answer of November 14, Mr. Levine accused
Mr. Keiler of stalling, and specifically referred to the
matters pertaining to Red Coats, and also stated that
he had previously referred to the matters concerning
the Union and Respondent. On November 25, Mr. Keiler
replied that he had not been enlightened concerning
the identity of the units of Respondent for which the
Union had requested bargaining, and stated further that
inasmuch as charges had been filed with the Board
' Keiler was informed by,Sanders on November 4 that he was being
retained on behalf of Respondent to negotiate with the Union
S Mr Levine, by another letter of November 6, had also requested
bargaining with Red Coats, another client of Mr Keller, which also
had bargaining agreements with the Union.
GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE CO., INC.
against Respondent he would be pleased to have the
dispute settled by the Board.
Meanwhile, Respondent has continued to check off
employees ' union dues in all units, and during September
resolved an employee wage grievance pursuant to the
bargaining agreement for unit A, which had expired
on June 30.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that Respondent was
under obligation to bargain with respect to all units,
that the Union gave timely notice to Respondent to
renegotiate all the agreements, that Respondent did not
bargain in good faith regarding Units A and B, and
that Respondent refused to bargain with respect to Units
C, D, and E.
Respondent asserts that it bargained in good faith
with respect to units A and B, and is willing to continue
to do so, and that it refused to bargain with regard
to units C, D, and E because it had no obligation
to do so inasmuch as the agreements covering these
units had been automatically renewed upon the Union's
failure to give timely notice of their termination. Despite
these assertions, Respondent also contends that for units
A, B, C, and D the General Counsel failed to establish
that Respondent was the legal successor of preceding
employers whose employees had designated the Union
as their bargaining representative."
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A. UnitsAandB
Respondent concedes that it received timely notice
of' the termination of agreements for units A and B
and the Union's request to renegotiate agreements, but
blames the Union for any delay and/or failure of the
parties to meet to negotiate such agreements . It asserts
that, while this matter was pending, there were contracts
between the parties pertaining to bargaining agreements
for buildings not involved herein, which provided ample
opportunity for the Union to discuss agreements for
units A and B. However, the evidence shows, and
I find, that despite Bailey's energetic but fruitless
attempts to contact Sanders to consider renewal agree-
ments, it was the alleged unavailability of Mr. Schools
which ostensibily caused Sanders to postpone negotia-
tions. Not only did Sanders fail to notify Bailey when
Schools became available, but he evaded taking any
imitative to fix a meeting date despite Bailey's importun-
ing. Finally, after the parties agreed on about October
" During the hearing Respondent also disputed the appropriateness
of the units and questioned the Union ' s majority status . In view of
Respondent 's positions as set forth in its brief, I find these objections
to be frivolous and without merit A good -faith doubt of a union's
continuance of majority status is no defense to a refusal to bargain
after prior recognition or certification unless founded upon a reasonable
objective basis for doubting said status. See Celanese Corporation of
America, 95 NLRB 664, 672. Respondent failed to establish such an
objective basis.
821
21 to meet on November 4, presumably to commence
or continue bargaining, Sanders belatedly declined to
negotiate at this meeting claiming that he had retained
counsel to do so on his behalf , and directed Bailey
to make his arrangements with his counsel .' Despite
this setback , Bailey 's counsel, Mr. Levine , began sending
written requests to Keiler to arrange a meeting. Their
correspondence persuasively demonstrates that Mr.
Keile was intent upon deferring any meeting by asserting
he was ignorant of which units were involved , a claim
not entirely free from suspicion . He could have easily
have obtained this information by contacting his client,
if he had not already been previously so informed.
Nor would he have made any irrevocable commitment
to bargain regarding any particular unit ,by meeting with
Mr. Levine, as he professed to fear . Finally, after
receiving a copy of the Union's charge which clearly
specified the buildings involved , Mr. Keiler evinced
an inclination to have the Board settle the dispute.
It is significant that even at this point he did not express
a willingness to meet to negotiate . It was only immediate-
ly prior to the hearing that he manifested a disposition
to meet to negotiate new agreements for units A and
B. I find that Respondent 's course of conduct revealed
gross procrastinatio`n , evasiveness , and lack of good
faith to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
B. Units C,,D, and E
Respondent contends that the Union failed to comply
with the 60-day notice of termination of agreements
for Units C, D, and E and that, therefore, said agree-
ments were automatically renewed relieving Respondent
of any obligation to bargain for new agreements for
these units . In support of this claim of untimeliness,
Respondent asserts that the terms of the notification
clause in the bargaining agreement specifically requires
"receipt" of the notification not less than 60 days prior
to contract termination. Concededly, Respondent did
not actually receive the termination notification until
August 18, only 58 days prior to the termination of
the agreements, although mailed on August 13. As a
matter of fact the notification provision does not speci-
fically provide for the "receipt" of the notice. It states
rather that the agreement shall be renewed unless not
less than 60 days prior to an anniversary date of this
agreement written notice to the contrary " is given"
by one party to the other. Respondent argues that notice
is not given to the other party until it has been received.
In construing contractual time provisions, the Board
has stated "In the final analysis; the interpretation to
be given to a statutory or contractual time provision
depends substantially upon the particular facts of each
case ." Ohio Oil Co., 91 NLRB 759, 762. Where there
is no direction provided in the agreement as to the
mode of delivery of the written notice, it may be accom-
plished through the post office unless it can be fairly
° By this time more than 6 months had elasped after the receipt
of the Union' s request to bargain.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and reasonably inferred that some other, means was
contemplated or expected. Thus, it appears that the
mails were used as an acceptable mode for the notice
concerning Units A and B. When the Union posted
the notice on August 13 for the other units, there was
ample time for delivery, and it had the right to assume
it would be received timely in the due course of the
mails. The Board has ruled in comparable situations
that, where posting has allowed sufficient time for deliv-
ery which has been delayed by the post office in circum-
stances not attributable to the sender, it would be inequi-
table to penalize the sender for the delay by holding
that he failed to comply with a timely notice require-
ment ." Furthermore , in mitigation of the delayed delivery
herein, it appears that Bailey ' met Sanders on August
14 and advised him at that time that he had also mailed
a*termination notice on the'preceding day covering units
C, D, and E. Accordingly, Respondent was alerted
to the fact that a termination notice had been sent.
Nor has any proof been adduced that Respondent has
been prejudiced by the late delivery of'the notice. More-
over, its failure to notify the Union upon the actual
receipt of the notice on August 18, that it considered
those agreements automatically renewed, and its silence
therein until it belatedly raised such objection at'the
hearing indicate that it initially waived any objections,
and then, as an afterthought, decided to utilize the
delayed delivery as a defense. Under these circumstances
it is not unreasonable to -find that Respondent waived
any objections to the notification of termination of agree-
ments in units C, D, and E.9 Accordingly, I find that
in the circumstances herein, the Union satisfied the
requirements of the notification provision of the agree-
ments for units C, D, and E. I, therefore, conclude
that Respondent failed and refused to bargain for renewal
agreements for these units in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.' ` I
I also find no merit in Respondent's contention that
inasmuch'as the agreements provide that any dispute
or disagreement arising out of the agreements may be
referred by either party for a binding decision by an
arbitrator, therefore any interpretation of the agreements
concerning the timeliness of the Union's notification
to terminate the agreements should appropriately be made
only by an arbitrator or court and not by the Board
since the existence of an unfair labor practice turns
on the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agree-
8 See Rio De Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 119 NLRB 153, where
a late filing of objections to an election resulted from unusual late
mail delivery Accord. Employers' Association of Building Metal Fabrica-
tors, 149 NLRB 382, 385.
e Waivers of late filings have been held applicable to RM petitions
(Augat Brothers, Inc., 97 NLRB 993), but not for contract-bar purposes
because of the special considerations applicable therein . See Deluxe
Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995 , 1002, for the Board 's rationale
for elimination of waivers in contract bar situations Nor has the Board
construed the notice requirements of Sec 8(d)(1) of the Act to apply
to, or affect the automatic renewal provisions of, existing collective-
bargaining agreements See Armstrong Cork , Company, CO NLRB 859,
860. Thus, failure to fulfill the notice requirements of Sec. 8(d)(1)
does not result in an automatic renewal of an existing contract Magnolia
Petroleum Company, 79 NLRB 1027, 1028; Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc ,
92 NLRB 1102, 1112.
merit. The Supreme Court has held that the Board
had jurisdiction to interpret collective-bargaining con-
tracts where, it is necessary to the resolution of unfair
labor practice charges under the Act. See N.L.R.B.
v. C & P Plywood Corporation, 385 U.S. 421; and
N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial ,Products Co., 385 U.S.
432. Furthermore, Respondent never invoked the arbitra-
tion provision, nor was the Union ever notified until
the hearing that Respondent objected to the timeliness
of the notice.
Respondent also contends that the General Counsel
failed to prove that it was the legal successor of employ-
ers whose employees had designated the Union as their
representative with respect to units A, B, C, and D,
and that, therefore, the Union could not achieve status
as the representative of the Respondent's employees
in these units. I find no merit in this contention. It
appears that Respondent had granted exclusive recogni-
tion to the Union as the representative of its employees
in at least one and up to four preceding contracts covering
these units. "Such recognition raises a presumption
of regularity, namely, that the Union was the majority
representative of the employees at the time of the execu-
tion of the contract; for, otherwise, it would have been
unlawful for the Respondent to have extended such
recognition. There is no evidence to rebut this presump-
tion."10 In this regard it is significant to note that
Respondent has also continued to check off the union
dues to date for the employees in these units, that
it has admitted an obligation to bargain with the Union
as the represenative of its employees for units A and
B, 'and that it has taken the position that it, currently,
is under contract with the Union for the other units.
Respondent makes no attempt to explain the anomaly
arising from the above facts vis-a-vis its position that
the General Counsel has failed to establish the Union's
representation status.
i
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein, the Union has been
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
- of the Act.
2. At all times material herein, Respondent has been
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith
upon request of the Union with respect to units A,
B, C, D, and E, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act. , ' I
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has unlawfully refused
to bargain with the Union, I shall recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
10 Shamrock Dairy, Inc., 124 NLRB 494, 495-496, enfd. 280 F.2d
665 (C A D.C ), cert denied 364 U S 892
GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE CO , INC 823
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in the case,
I recommend that General Maintenance Service Compa-
ny, Inc , its officers, agent, successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Building
Service Employees Union, Local 82, affiliated with Serv-
ice Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of
All maids, charwomen, cleaners, mghtmen, porters,
scrubbers, and waxers employed by Respondent
at The Federal Bar Building , 1815 H Street, N W ,
Washington, D C , and the Federal Bar Building
West, 1819 11 Street, N W , Washington, D C ,
excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the Act, as amended
All maids, charwomen, cleaners, mghtmen, porters,
scrubbers, and waxers employed by Respondent
at the Brookings Institution Office Building at 1775
Massachusetts Avenue, N W Washington, D C ,
excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the Act, as amended
All building service workers, including porters,
maids, charwomen, scrubbers, and waxers
employed by Respondent at the Riddell Building,
1730 K Street, N W , Washington, D C , excluding
all other employees, office clerical employees,
guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined in
the Act, as amended
All building service workers, including porters,
maids, charwomen, scrubbers, and waxers
employed by Respondent at the Public [National]
Bank Office Building, 1430 K Street, N W , Wash-
ington, D C , excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act, as amended
All building service workers, including porters,
maids, charwomen, scrubbers, and waxers
employed by Respondent at 1025 Vermont Avenue
Office Building , 1025 Vermont Avenue, N W ,
Washington, D C , excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards, watchmen and
supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended
with respect to rates of pay, wages, tenure of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employ-
ees in any like or related manner in connection with
the exercise of the right of self-organization, to form
labor organizations , to join or assist Building Service
Employees Union, Local 82, affiliated with Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959
2 Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Building
Service Employees Union, Local 82, affiliated with Serv-
ice Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
units for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect
to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed statement
(b) Post at the office buildings involved herein copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix "11 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
nal
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in
writing,, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 12
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
oT the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions , recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 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
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of
a United States Court of Apppeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
12 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Building Service Employees Union, Local 82 , affili-
ated with Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
our employees in the following appropriate units
All maids, charwomen, cleaners, rughtmen,
porters, scrubbers, and waxers employed by
Respondent at The Federal Bar Building, 1815
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H Street, N W , Washington, D C and the
Federal Bar Building West, 1819 H Street,
N W , Washington, D C , excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen and supervisors as defined in the
Act, as amended
All maids , charwomen, cleaners , nightmen,
porters , scrubbers , and waxers employed by
Respondent at the Brookings Institution Office
Building at 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N W ,
Washington , D C , excluding all other employ-
ees, office clerical employees , guards , watch-
men and supervisors as defined in the Act,
as amended
All building service workers , including porters,
maids charwomen, scrubbers , and waxers
employed by Respondent at the Riddell Build-
ing, 1730 K Street, N W , Washington, D C,
excluding all other employees , office clerical
employees , guards , watchmen and supervisors
as defined in the Act , as amended
Avenue Office Building , 1025 Vermont Ave-
nue, N W , Washington , D C , excluding all
other employees , office clerical employees,
guards , watchmen and supervisors as defined
in the Act , as amended
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 , loin, or assist Building Service Employees
Union , Local 82, affiliated with Service Employees
International Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities , except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment , as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act of 1959
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
SERVICE COMPANY, INC
(Employer)
All building service workers, including porters,
maids, charwomen , scrubbers, and waxers
employed by Respondent at the Public [Nation-
al] Bank Office Building , 1430 K Street, N W ,
Washington , D C , excluding all other employ-
ees, office clerical employees , guards , watch-
men and supervisors as defined in the Act,
as amended
All building service workers, including porters,
maids, charwomen , scrubbers , and waxers
employed by Respondent at 1025 Vermont
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
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
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board ' s Office,
Federal Building , Room 1019, Charles Center , Baltimore,
Maryland 21201 , Telephone 301-962-2822