Intalco Aluminum Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 23, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 1034 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Intalco Aluminum Corporation and United Steel- workers of America, AFL-CIO and Aluminum Workers International Union , AFL-CIO and Bellingham Metal Trades Council , Allied Indus- tries Division and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL, CIO, Party to the Contract. Cases 19-CA-3346, 19-CA-3347, and 19-CA-3348 February 23, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On September 7, 1967, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his Decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, Respondent, the General Counsel, the Intervenor, and the Charging Parties filed ex- ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and sup- porting briefs. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. We adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by recognizing the Intervenor, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees, notwithstanding the fact that Respond- ent acted only after receiving a certification from the Department of Labor and Industries for the State of Washington, stating that the Intervenor represented a majority of employees in an ap- propriate unit. We do so for the following reasons: It is apparent that the cross-check of the Inter- venor's authorization cards conducted by the De- partment of Labor and Industries was conducted pursuant to a consent agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Intervenor. This consent agreement is, in effect, a recognition by the Respond- ent and Intervenor that a question concerning representation existed and was to be resolved by appropriate proceeding conducted by the State of Washington. However, the cross-check was carried out without the other unions, who were then known by Respondent and the Intervenor to be engaged in organizing the employees involved, being afforded an opportunity to participate in the investigation of the question concerning representation submitted to the Department of Labor and Industries. That those unions in fact had a substantial interest in the matter under investigation is shown by the fact that one of them alone had secured more than 44 authorization cards dated prior to the cross-check. In these circumstances, we agree with the Trial Ex- aminer that at the time of recognition a question concerning representation existed and that the in- vestigation and resolution of that question was not attended by appropriate safeguards, and we find that Respondent acted at its peril in relying on the State's certification of the Intervenor as the representative of its employees. Further, the record herein reveals that 30 of the cards secured by the Intervenor were signed by employees who also signed cards for one of the other unions. In these circumstances, these 30 cards are insufficient to establish the signers' selection of the Intervenor as their exclusive bargaining representative, and, as a substantial number of these cards were necessary to support the Intervenor's claimed majority status, it follows that the Intervenor was not the duly designated representative of the Respondent's em- ployees within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act; it was a minority union. An employer's recog- nition of a minority union as the exclusive represent- ative of its employees violates Section 8(a)(2) and (1) without regard to the employer's good faith. International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (Bernhard Altmann Texas Corp.) v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, Intalco Aluminum Cor- poration, Bellingham, Washington, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. We hereby correct the inadvertent error in the Conclusions of Law, paragraph 3,by substituting the word "Intervenor" for the word "Respond- ent" to make it read in pertinent part as follows : "By recognizing Inter- venor on March 16, 1966... " 169 NLRB No. 136 INTALCO ALUMINUM CORPORATION TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE K. KENNEDY, Trial Examiner: This con- solidated proceeding took place in Bellingham, Washing- ton, on various dates between August 16, 1966, and March 2, 1967.1 The complaint alleges that Intalco Alu- minum Corporation, herein Respondent, gave unlawful assistance to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Inter- venor, in ways which will be referred to more specifically herein, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Upon consideration of the entire record, my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs filed, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its prin- cipal office located in Ferndale, Washington. The parties stipulated that a portion of the production of aluminum antedated the filing of a representation petition by the Aluminum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, on March 18, 1966, and that additional production effected by the use of potlines commenced in May 1966, and later in 1966 an additional potline was put in production. Dur- ing April 1966 Respondent received raw materials from outside the State of Washington to be used in the manu- facture of aluminum, valued in excess of $50,000. During 1966 Respondent realized a gross income exceeding $50,000 from the sale and distribution of primary alu- minum to customers located outside the State of Washington. It is found that Respondent is engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, herein the Intervenor; the Aluminum Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, herein the Aluminum Workers; the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein the Steelworkers ; and the Bellingham Metal Trades Council , Allied Industries Division , are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Events In 1965 Respondent commenced the construction of a plant in Ferndale, Washington, to manufacture aluminum. The first hourly employee was hired in June 1965. In the summer or fall of 1965 a representative of the Steelwork- ers talked with a representative of Respondent, as did a representative of the Aluminum Workers in late 1965. Both the representatives of the Steelworkers and the Alu- x In Case 19-CA-3346 the original charge was filed on March 18, 1966, and an amended charge was filed on May 9, 1966. In Case 19-CA-3347 the original charge was filed on March 18 , 1966, and an amended charge was filed on April 29, 1966 In Case 19-CA-3348 the 1035 minum Workers announced an intention to organize Respondent's employees. Respondent was also contacted by a representative of the Intervenor, Machinists Union, in late 1965. In March 1966 there is evidence that the Bellingham Trades Council was also engaging in an or- ganizational campaign. In early March 1966, the Steel- workers placed a trailer and a sign announcing their or- ganizational headquarters on an access road to Respond- ent's plant. On March 10, 1966, the Intervenor sent a letter to Respondent requesting recognition and offering to prove a majority by submitting authorization cards to a third party for a card check. On March 16, 1966, a representa- tive from the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries conducted a card check utilizing the authoriza- tion cards submitted by the Intervenor and a list of hourly employees furnished by Respondent. Within a day or two thereafter, Respondent received the following letter: Division of Industrial Relations Maxine E. Daly, Su- pervisor Willard G. Olson State Labor Mediator 1601 Second Avenue Building Seattle, Washington 98101 March 17, 1966 Robert G. Henderson Superintendent of Industrial Relations Intalco Aluminum Corporation P.O. Box 937 Ferndale, Washington Dear Mr. Henderson: You are hereby advised that the Mediation Service of the Department of Labor and Industries has con- ducted an investigation concerning the claim of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers that it represents a majority of the employees of your organization in an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. We are satisfied that the complement of employees now working for the employer is representative of the ultimate work force to be employed. In fact the present work force is a replica, though smaller, of the ultimate force. The mix of employees is the same as the ultimate force and all job classifications are presently employed and working or employees are in training therefor. The unit agreed to by the Union and the employer is an appropriate unit and is as follows: "All production and maintenance employees including truck drivers at the company's Ferndale, Washington plant, but excluding all office and clerical employees, plant clerical employees, laboratory and technical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, watchmen original charge was filed on March 10, 1966, and an amended charge was filed on May 9, 1966. The consolidated complaint was issued on May 11, 1966, and an amendment thereto was issued on August 5, 1966 1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended." The list of employees furnished by the parties in ac- cordance with the Stipulation of Agreement con- tained 122 names . The Union presented 85 signed authorization cards . Each and every authorization card was checked against signatures known to be authentic in Company files by myself and Mr. George Miller, Labor Relations Agent. This cross- check resulted in a finding that 81 authorization cards were genuine. Under separate cover you have been given a written certification of results and this will substantiate that document to the effect that International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is the certified representative of the employees of Intalco Alu- minum Corporation in the above described unit. This will also substantiate the understanding of the parties that the above certification does not include ship unloading employees. Very truly yours, /s/ Willard G. Olson Willard G. Olson State Labor Mediator WGO:rs cc: Maxine E. Daly Mr. Al Schultz Enclosed with the letter was the following certification: State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CERTIFICATION ON CONDUCT OF CONSENT CROSS-CHECK NAME OF EMPLOYER INTALCO ALU- MINUM CORPORATION CASE NO. 0-148 DATE OF ELECTION March 16, 1966 PLACE Ferndale, Washington The undersigned acted as agent of the Supervisor of Industrial Relations in the conduct of the Consent Cross-Check at the above time and place. I hereby certify that such Cross-Check was fairly conducted to the best of my ability and a substantial number of signatures were checked for authenticity. FOR THE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS /s/ Willard G. Olson State Mediator The Respondent then posted a notification of its recog- nition of the Intervenor. On March 18, 1966, the Alu- minum Workers filed a petition for representation with the Board, naming the Intervenor and the Steelworkers as organizations which have claimed recognition as representatives or as organizations known to have a representative interest in employees. Submitted with the petition were 44 authorization cards. Of these, there were 31 signed by individuals who had signed cards for the In- tervenor, and 22 of those had been signed after the Inter- venor's cards had been signed by employees in the unit. The list furnished by the Respondent for the card check contained 122 names of employees. The Washington State representative found that 81 of the Intervenor's authorization cards were authentic. The Aluminum Work- ers, in connection with their petition for representation, filed cards of the following type with the National Labor Relations Board. ALUMINUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations Authorization for Representation Under the National Labor Relations Act I:, the undersigned employee of the (Name of Company) (Company Address) (Dept.) I hereby designate and authorize the ALUMINUM WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, to re- present me for the purpose of Collective Bargaining in all matters pertaining to wages , hours and working conditions. This authorization cancels any previous authorization. Name (Please Print) Phone Address (City) (State) Signature Date After a period of negotiations on April 14, 1966, the Respondent and the Intervenor executed a collective-bar- gaining agreement. In their briefs, the parties are at a wide variance in their claims relating to the expansion of job classifications. In substance, the General Counsel contends that less than 30 percent of the job classifications were filled at the date of recognition on March 16, 1966. The Intervenor and the Respondent, in effect, claim that the same basic work was performed in March and April 1966, and that the classifications negotiated in the contract covered the same work. Although the General Counsel claimed a question of representation existed when the Aluminum Workers filed its petition with the Board on March 18, 1966, this is inconsistent with his claim of a nonrepresent- ative unit, which, however, does not affect the ultimate disposition of the issues presented by this record. One ex- hibit submitted by the General Counsel reflects that 115 employees were on Respondent's payroll as of March 16, 1966; 157 on April 14, 1966; 250 on May 15, 1966; 328 on June 15, 1966; 372 on July 15, 1966; and 409 on Au- gust 15, 1966. B. The Issues Presented As will be developed herein, all the issues developed by the parties in this record are not regarded as necessary for INTALCO ALUMINUM CORPORATION the disposition of this case . They are indicated , in part, to reflect the nature of the issues litigated. (a) The General Counsel and the other three compet- ing unions contend that the record reflects that 30 of the Intervenor 's cards are rendered invalid by reason of the false representations made to the signers that they would be used only for an election . In general , the validity of many of these cards is uncertain because of questions of credibility and also because of semantical problems as to whether the representation made was that the card was to be used only or solely for an election . See Clothing Work- ers [Sagamore Shirt Company] v. N.L.R.B., 365 F.2d 898 (C .A.D.C.). Without considering the opposing con- tentions of the General Counsel and the Intervenor with respect to these cards , it is noted that if all 30 cards were regarded as invalid , the Intervenor would have only 51 cards in a unit of 122 . However , since there is a clear basis for resolving the ultimate issue presented on the failure to resolve the question of representation , the con- siderations affecting the validity of the disputed cards are not necessary for examination. The Respondent contends that it had no responsibility for the representations made in connection with obtaining the authorization cards. Respondent contends that in the absence of a showing of bad faith , it was obligated to recognize the Intervenor after the card check or face an unfair labor practice charge based on a refusal to bargain. Respondent points out that none of the witnesses who testified concerning circumstances arguably invalidating the Intervenor ' s cards communicated these circum- stances to Respondent , and that no union made a demand for recognition prior to the Intervenor ' s. Respondent re- lies on Snow & Sons v. N.L.R. B., 308 F.2d 687 (C.A. 9). The facts presented here are distinguishable if, in fact, a question of representation existed at the time recognition was extended to the Intervenor , and if the card check did not resolve the question of representation . Recognition of a union representing only a minority of employees is a violation of Section 8(a)(2) and constitutes unlawful assistance even though there was an absence of bad faith on the part of Respondent. In International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO [Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731, 738, the Supreme Court said on this point: The petitioner , while taking no issue with the fact of its minority status on the critical date, maintains that both Bernhard -Altmann's and its own good-faith beliefs in petitioner' s majority status are a complete defense. To countenance such an excuse would place in permissibly careless employer and union hands the power to completely frustrate employee realization of the premise of the Act- that its prohibitions will go far to assure freedom of choice and majority rule in employee selection of representatives . We find nothing in the statutory language prescribing scienter as an element of the unfair labor practices here in- volved. The act made unlawful by § 8(a)(2) is em- ployer support of a minority union. Here that support is an accomplished fact. More need not be shown, for, even if mistakenly , the employees ' rights have been invaded. It follows that prohibited conduct can- not be excused by a showing of good faith. (b) The contentions of the General Counsel that pre- mature recognition of the Intervenor , because there was not a representative number of employees or classifica- tions at the time recognition was extended to the Inter- venor, constituted unlawful assistance , or that 30 of the 1037 Intervenor's cards were invalid are not necessary for resolution as the issue of whether the question of representation was resolved by the card check is disposi- tive of this matter. (c) In his complaint, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent unlawfully assisted the Intervenor by sup- plying a detailed list of the production and maintenance employees. The question of whether or not such an action standing alone constitutes an unfair labor practice need not be reached as the evidence does not support a finding that such action occurred. A witness for the General Counsel testified that a representative of the Machinists testified that he received a list of employees' names from Mr. Wagner, a representative of Respondent. This testimony is hearsay, and not binding on Respondent. The testimony of Respondent's representative in charge of employment and training, Robert Wagner, is credited to the effect that he did not supply such a list to a representative of the Intervenor. In his brief the General Counsel apparently abandons his claim of unlawful assistance by reason of Respondent furnishing a list of names to the Intervenor. Accordingly, it is found that there is no basis in his record for finding Respondent gave unlawful assistance by furnishing a list of names to Inter- venor. (d) Respondent contends that the record lacks figures of commerce or jurisdictional data to establish the ju- risdiction of the Board. The pleadings establish that dur- ing the month of April 1966, Respondent received raw material to be used in the manufacture of aluminum from outside the State of Washington valued in excess of $50,000. It is also established by the pleadings that Respondent will receive in excess of $50,000 from the sale of aluminum to customers outside the State of Washington during 1966. As indicated above, the parties stipulated that production commenced prior to the filing of the petition by the Aluminum Workers in March 1966. Because the production and maintenance unit at this time approximated 120 employees, it is a reasonable implica- tion that the production activities at this time were adequate, taken with the projected annual interstate sales, to justify assertion of jurisdiction by the Board. In this context, I find the cases cited by Respondent, in its brief, are not precedents for denying jurisdiction in this case. Here the Board had legal jurisdiction when'the complaint issued, and it is clear that an operation of the type de- picted by this record would tend to affect interstate com- merce, and bring this dispute within the ambit of the Act. Because of the complement of over 100 production and maintenance employees in March, it is also a reasonable inference that its operations tended to affect commerce when the charges were filed. (e) The pivotal issue presented by this record is whether the question of representation was resolved by the card check of March 16, 1966. As indicated above, it is clear that Respondent was aware of the organizational campaigns of the Aluminum Workers and the Steelworkers, and so notified the Washington State representative who conducted the card check and certified the Intervenor as the majority representative of Respondent's production and main- tenance employees. Whereas here there' are multiple cards signed by a single employee, a given card does not ultimately reflect the choice of the employee's bargaining agent. Novak Logging Company, 119 NLRB 1573. In the instant case had the Washington State represent- ative called upon the Aluminum Workers and the Steel- 1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD workers to submit authorization cards, he would have been confronted with 44 cards from the Aluminum Work- ers and 81 from the Intervenor.2 Of these, 31 were signed by the same employees. In my judgment this alone would call for settling the question of representation by a secret election. However, a more decisive factor is that 22 of the Aluminum Workers' cards revoked the cards previously signed for the Intervenor, leaving the Inter- venor with 59 unrevoked cards which represent a minori- ty of the employees. In the context of the facts presented here the Washington State representative had a clear obligation to notify the competing unions of the procedure to resolve the question of representation and if he had done so the results would have been different and no union could have been designated as majority representative. It was equally incumbent on the Respond- ent not to have accepted the certification of the Washington State representative until it was ascertained that the competitive unions had an opportunity to par- ticipate in the procedure resolving the question of representation. Underscoring this view is the representa- tion petition form used by the Board in which a petition for representation must include the names of any labor or- ganizations known to have an interest in the employees involved. Because of the considerations indicated, it seems evident that the card check was ineffectual in set- tling the question of representation existing in March 1966. Concluding Findings The facts of this record clearly establish that Respond- ent extended recognition to, and executed a contract with , the Intervenor containing a union-security clause on April 14, 1966, at a time when the Intervenor did not represent a majority of the employees in the production and maintenance unit and when a question of representa- tion existed . Such action is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The acts of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing and by entering into an unlawful agreement with Intervenor, it will be recommended that Respondent cease maintaining and en- forcing its unlawful agreement with the Intervenor, and that it withdraw and withhold recognition from the Inter- venor unless and until the Intervenor shall have been cer- tified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees of Respondent. It has been found that the collective-bargaining agree- ment which the Respondent and the Intervenor executed on April 14, 1966, was entered into at a time when the Union did not represent an uncoerced or unassisted majority of the Respondent 's employees , and it follows that Respondent had no lawful right to condition employ- ment upon compliance with the union -security provisions of such agreement . In order to fully remedy the unfair labor practices found herein , and to establish an at- mosphere in which the employees may exercise the right to select or reject a bargaining representative , it will be recommended that the Respondent make whole all em- ployees, present and former , for dues and other moneys unlawfully exacted from them as a result of the aforesaid unlawful agreement , by reimbursing all such employees for all such dues and moneys paid by or withheld from them with interest since April 14, 1966 , computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of North America; Great Lakes District , AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1142. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce or in a busi- ness affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Intervenor, the Aluminum Workers, the Steel- workers, and the Bellingham Trades Council are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. By recognizing Respondent on March 16, 1966, and executing a collective-bargaining agreement with it on April 14, 1966, when Intervenor did not represent a majority of the employees in the production and main- tenance unit of Respondent's employees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. 4. Respondent did not violate the Act by furnishing a list of names to the Intervenor. 5. The unfair labor practices set forth above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, Intalco Aluminum Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing the Intervenor as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until such labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees in an appropriate bargaining unit. (b) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agree- ment executed with the above-named labor organization on April 14, 1966, or to any extension, renewal, or 2 Failure to invite participation by the Aluminum Workers and the Steelworkers in the card check by Board standards represents a major de- fect in settling the question of representation. INTALCO ALUMINUM CORPORATION modification thereof, provided , however, that nothing herein shall require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority , or other substantive features of their relationship with their employees which Respondent has established in the performance of such agreement. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the In- tervenor as the representative of any of its employees, un- less and until such labor organization shall have been cer- tified by the Board as such representative. (b) Reimburse all employees , present and former, for dues and other moneys unlawfully exacted under their il- legal contract with the Intervenor , together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner set forth in the above section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its plant in Ferndale, Washington , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ."3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19 , after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent , shall be posted by it 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 material. (e) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.4 3 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals 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 Respond- ent has , taken to comply herewith." 1039 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify all em- ployees that: We hereby withdraw recognition from Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and will no longer give effect to any contract with that organization affecting your employment. WE WILL reimburse you, with interest , for any sums of moneys and dues you have paid to the Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, since April 14, 1966 , because of an actual or supposed requirement that you had to pay any money to that labor organization in order to stay in our employ. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in their right to join or assist a union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activi- ties. INTALCO ALUMINUM CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-4583.