International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 771 and Joint Council 53 (Pennsy Supply, Inc. d/b/a Rea

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 27, 2011

04-CB-010482 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 27, 2011)

JD–44–11
Quarryville, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, and
HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 771,
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS and
its JOINT COUNCIL No. 53
and Case 4–CB–10482
PENNSY SUPPLY, INC., d/b/a READY–
MIXED CONCRETE
Margaret M. McGovern, Esq., and
Deena E. Kobell, Esq. (on brief),
for the Acting General Counsel.
Ira Weinstock, Esq. (Ira Weinstock, P.C.),
of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.
Vincent Candiello, Esq. (Post & Schell, P.C.),
of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN T. CLARK, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, on November 12 and 19, 2010. The charge was filed by Pennsy Supply, Inc.,
d/b/a Ready–Mixed Concrete (the Charging Party or Employer) on April 30, 2010.1 The
complaint issued on August 27. The complaint alleges that Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers
Local Union No. 771, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Joint
Council No. 53 (the Respondent or the Union), violated Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act), when, on April 14, it unlawfully repudiated an agreed-upon new
collective-bargaining agreement with the Charging Party. The Respondent's answer denies
violating the Act in any manner.

1 All dates are in 2010 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–44–11
2
5
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the counsel for the Acting General Counsel, the Respondent,
and the Charging Party, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT10
I. JURISDICTION
The Employer a Pennsylvania corporation, with a facility in Quarryville, Pennsylvania,
has been engaged in the production and transport of asphalt and concrete in Lancaster County, 15
Pennsylvania. During the 12-month period ending August 27, 2010, the Employer, in
conducting its business operations above, purchased and received at its Quarryville facility goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Respondent admits, and I find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Respondent is a labor organization 20
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background25
The Employer operates numerous concrete and asphalt plants in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. In 2007, it purchased several facilities, including plants in Lancaster, Quarryville,
and Landisville, Pennsylvania, from McMinn’s Asphalt. The Landisville plant is a nonunion
facility. The employees at the Lancaster and Quarryville plants were represented by the 30
Respondent under a single collective-bargaining agreement. At the completion of the sale the
Employer recognized the Respondent and assumed the collective-bargaining agreement. At the
beginning of the trial the parties stipulated that the unit set forth in article 1 of the expired
agreement was an appropriate unit within meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The unit is: truck-
drivers, helpers, mechanics, yard persons, and plant persons employed by the Employer.35
After the purchase and the assumption of the collective-bargaining agreement the parties
bargained over some changes to the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. The
bargaining resulted in a letter of agreement being signed by the parties on March 7, 2008.
Howard Rhinier, the Respondent's secretary-treasurer and principal officer, and James Wardrop,40
the Respondent's business agent signed the agreement for the Respondent. In addition to signing
the letter Rhinier participated in the negotiations. Toni M. Roberson who was then the
Employer’s vice president of human resources signed on behalf of the Employer. (GC Exh. 3.)
In early 2009 the parties negotiated an agreement that allowed the Quarryville drivers to 45
drive for the Landisville plant. Those negotiations were conducted by Matthew Dunn, the
Employer’s transportation manager, and Wardrop. Both men signed that agreement as well as
Rhinier, who did not participate in the negotiations. The agreement was not dated but “ran
through 2009.” (GC Exh. 4.) Melissa Martin-Devitz, who was then the Employer’s manager of
human resources, testified without contradiction that the agreement was executed in 50
approximately July of 2009.
JD–44–11
3
5
On February 25, 2010, Brian Groff, the Employer’s vice president of concrete, and
Martin-Devitz, met with Wardrop and Tim Cunningham. Cunningham is employed by the
Employer and is also a union steward at the facility. (Tr. 27.) The Employer wanted to extend
the agreement allowing the Quarryville drivers to continue to drive for the Landisville facility.
The Employer proposed that the agreement be continued “until the expiration of the collective-10
bargaining agreement which is March 31, 2010.” A written agreement was not forthcoming but
the following day Martin-Devitz sent a confirming letter to Wardrop. Although Wardrop did not
respond it is undisputed that the status quo was continued during the negotiations for the new
collective-bargaining agreement.
15
The collective-bargaining agreement that was assumed by the Employer was effective
from April 1, 2007 until March 31, 2010, and thereafter from year to year until either party gave
a 60-day termination notice. The Respondent's gave effective notice and the termination date
was March 31, 2010.
20
B. The Collective-Bargaining Meetings
The parties met on March 25–26, 29, 31, and April 6. The Employer was represented by
Robertson, its chief negotiator, Martin-Devitz, Groff, and Dunn. Dunn was not present at the 25
April 6 meeting. Wardrop was the Respondent’s chief negotiator at the meetings. He was
accompanied by Cunningham and Barry Smedley. Smedley is an employee of the Employer and
he is also a union steward at the facility. Smedley did not attend the April 6 meeting.
Martin-Devitz was tasked as the note taker for the Employer. She also kept track of the 30
status of the parties proposals as the negotiations went forward. She kept track by annotating a
typed working draft. The annotations indicated “tentative agreement” or withdrawal of the
proposal and the date and time of the action. See e.g. counsel for the Acting General Counsel’s
Exhibit 12 at Pennsy 0060–62.
35
At the initial meeting Robertson observed that Rhinier was absent. She asked of his
whereabouts and Wardrop said that Rhinier would not attend the negotiations. Robertson asked
if Wardrop had full authority to negotiate, and agree to, a new collective-bargaining agreement.
Wardrop answered in the affirmative. (Tr. 271.)
40
On March 31 the Employer’s negotiators again had cause to question Wardrop’s
authority. Aside and apart from the negotiations the parties were dealing with a totally separate
issue. They were attempting to determine the amount of money to distribute to employees
resulting from an arbitration decision. Wardrop also represented the Respondent in these
separate discussions. Frequently Wardrop would request a recess in order to confer by phone 45
with Rhinier. Because of these consultations the Employer’s negotiators wanted to make sure
that Wardrop had authority to negotiate, and commit, the Respondent to a new collective-
bargaining agreement.
Martin-Devitz decided to again question Wardrop’s authority. She deliberately sought 50
out Wardrop when he was alone and away from the bargaining area. Martin-Devitz told
JD–44–11
4
Wardrop that because she believed that the parties were close to an agreement, she wanted to 5
make certain that Wardrop had the authority to commit the Respondent to a new collective-
bargaining agreement. She posited that the Employer would not put its last proposal on the table
if Wardrop did not have the authority to accept it. Martin-Devitz testified that Wardrop gave her
repeated assurances that he had the authority to negotiate and to commit the Respondent to a new
collective-bargaining agreement. Martin-Devitz was a creditable witness and I have no reason to 10
doubt her veracity. Moreover, her testimony concerning this conversation was neither refuted
nor addressed by Wardrop when he testified, and thus uncontested.
Three issues were unresolved when the April 6 meeting began and all were resolved
when it ended, with the last being the side letter concerning the Quarryville drivers. That issue 15
was resolved when the Respondent accepted the Employer’s proposal at 1:05 p.m. (GC Exh. at
Pennsy 109.) Immediately thereafter the parties stood, shook hands, and congratulated each
other on a job well done. After shaking hands Wardrop and Martin-Devitz made plans that each
would type a draft of the collective-bargaining agreement and then compare the drafts for
accuracy.20
After the handshaking and congratulations but before the parties went their separate ways
some additional comments were made by Wardrop. Robertson said that Wardrop told her that
that he had to get Rhinier to sign the agreement and the employees to ratify it. Martin-Devitz
testified that he told her that he would sign the agreement and get Rhinier to sign it. Groff claims 25
that Wardrop said that he needed to call the employees and “show them the contract and that was
it.” Wardrop admits that he shook hands and then claims that he told Robertson that they had “a
tentative agreement based solely on the side agreement being signed by Howard Rhinier and
ratified by the membership.” (Tr. 260.) He also claims that other people were present.
30
On April 8 Wardrop called Martin-Devitz to request a meeting because Rhinier “had
some issues” regarding the signing of the agreement. The meeting occurred on April 14 as
stipulated by the parties. (Tr. 8.) Wardrop delineated numerous obstacles that he claimed
prevented Rhinier from signing the side agreement, culminating with the ultimate impediment,
that the Respondent was unable to enter into side agreements. Robinson responded to Wardrop’s 35
“issues” by letter dated April 15. Robertson addressed and rejected each and every issue,
specifically noting that the parties had used side agreements in the past. Because of Rhinier’s
total rejection of the side agreement Robertson withdraw the agreement. Robertson closed with
a demand that the Respondent execute the labor agreement consistent with the requirements of
Section 8(d) of the Act. The Respondent has not signed either agreement.40
C. Analysis and Discussion
1. Authority to reach agreement
45
The duty to bargain includes the obligation to appoint a negotiator with genuine authority
to carry on meaningful bargaining regarding fundamental issues. Schmitz Food, 313 NLRB 554,
560 (1993). The law is well settled that an agent assigned to negotiate a collective-bargaining
agreement is clothed with “apparent authority to bind the principle in the absence of clear notice
to the contrary.” E.g., Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 324 NLRB 1101, 1108 (1997), and cited cases, 50
enfd. 172 F.3d 57 (9th Cir. 1999)(Table); University of Bridgeport, 229 NLRB 1074, 1074
JD–44–11
5
(1977). If the limitation placed on the negotiating authority is a condition precedent to a final 5
and binding agreement the notice must be clear, unambiguous, and, disclosed to the other party
before agreement is reached. Auto Workers Local 365 (Cecilware Corp.), 307 NLRB 189, 193–
194 (1992); Adams Iron Works, Inc., 221 NLRB 71, 78 (1975), and cited cases, enfd. 556 F.2d
557 (2d Cir. 1976) (Table).
10
In addition to Wardrop’s “apparent authority,” I find that on at least two occasions he
represented to the Employer’s negotiators that he had authority to negotiate and commit the
Respondent to a new collective-bargaining agreement. On cross-examination Wardrop again
admitted that he told the Employer’s negotiators that he had full authority to negotiate and to
commit the Respondent's to a new collective-bargaining agreement. Immediately after that 15
admission counsel for the Acting General Counsel asked him if April 6th was the first time that
he told the Employer’s negotiators that Rhinier had to sign the side letter. Wardrop responded,
“I did make that statement a couple [of] different times. That it had to be—the side agreement
had to be signed and ratified by the membership.” (Tr. 271–272.) Wardrop repeats this
statement on redirect-examination when asked if the Employer knew that there had to be a 20
ratification vote. Wardrop replies, “[i]t was mentioned through[out] contract proposals,
negotiations.” When asked “what was mentioned” he answers, “[t]hat it would have to be
ratified in—and the side agreement goes hand in hand with Management Rights Clause, had to
be signed by the principle officer Howard Rhinier and ratified by the membership. Which all
contracts do.” (Tr. 291–292.)25
Wardrop spoke those words with a palpable lack of conviction. Perhaps they did not
have a “ring of truth” because the words are in direct conflict with his affidavit of June 30, 2010
which limits his announcement solely to April 6, the last day of the negotiations. Despite
Wardrop’s claim that he made the statements at “different times,” “throughout negotiations,” no 30
witness corroborates his account. Neither of the two other union negotiators were even called to
testify. I find Wardrop’s statements to be self-serving and disingenuous. They are not credible.
The statement that Wardrop claims to have made on April 6, immediately after shaking
hands with the other negotiators, is nearer to the truth, but I still find it is embellished and self-35
serving. Wardrop claims, apparently after the negotiations were favorably concluded, that he
announced to all those present, “that we have a–basically have a tentative agreement based solely
on the side agreement being signed by Howard Rhinier and ratified by the membership.”
Thereafter, he avers that he made this statement to Robertson directly. (Tr. 260–261.) Once
again no witness corroborates his statement. Cunningham, the other union negotiator who was 40
present on April 6, was not called to testify. Wardrop admits that the Respondent's bargaining
notes for April 6 do not reflect that he made that statement. Martin-Devitz, the Employer’s note
taker, testified that after the negotiations were completed Wardrop told her that he would sign the
typed agreement and get Rhinier to do the same. Thereafter, the parties would set a date for the
Employer to sign. She did not recall anything being said regarding ratification.45
Robinson testified that Wardrop told her that he would get Rhinier to sign the agreement
and the employees to ratify it. Robinson’s testimony is consistent with her affidavit and with
Martin-Devitz’s testimony. Neither woman testified that Wardrop said anything about the
signing of the collective-bargaining agreement being contingent on Rhinier signing the side 50
agreement. Based on their testimony neither woman appeared to have been troubled by
JD–44–11
6
Wardrop’s comments. They both proceeded with a “busy as usual” attitude. Robinson 5
specifically stated that she viewed Wardrop’s comments as relating only to an “administrative
function.” (Tr. 139, 173.) In that regard she was quick to correct the Respondent's counsel by
telling him that there was no mention of Rhinier ever having to approve the collective-bargaining
agreement—only that he had to sign it. (Tr. 162.) Auto Workers Local 365 (Cecilware Corp.),
above at 194.10
I credit Robinson and Martin-Devitz’s testimony over that of Wardrop’s. Their
testimony was consistent with each other and their actions after hearing Robinson’s comments
were also consistent with their testimony. I was generally impressed with their testimony. They
appeared to be making an earnest effort to give truthful and accurate answers under somewhat 15
trying circumstances. Martin-Devitz testified as the Employer’s current human resources
director and Robinson was no longer employed by the Employer.
I have also considered the testimony of Dunn and Groff. I find that both men are
creditable witnesses. I also find it evident from their testimony that they were appointed to the 20
negotiating team for their managerial expertise and not because of any negotiating skills or
knowledge. I am unaware of any significant discrepancies between their testimony and that of
Robinson and Martin-Devitz. If there was I would credit the testimony of Robinson and Martin-
Devitz over that of Dunn and Groff. As Dunn candidly admitted “ I [was not] sitting there
paying attention to everything they said if it had nothing to do with what I was there for. (Tr. 25
203.)
The Respondent also argues that a letter (R. Exh. 3) drafted by Rhinier in 1999 and sent
to the Charging Party’s predecessor establishes a policy that “no agreements, whether
contractual, verbal, or written, can be agreed to without [Rhinier’s] approval.” According to the 30
Respondent this policy is still in effect and it requires Wardrop to get Rhinier’s approval on all
proposed agreements and also to have the agreements ratified by the membership. (R. Br. at 3.)
As the Charging Party correctly points out in brief, the letter, on its face, limits its
restrictions to the “current” (1999) collective-bargaining agreement. The letter instructs that all 35
side agreements must be approved, in writing by both James Cox, the Respondent’s then
president and Rhinier. The record establishes that Cox is no longer president. (Tr. 119.)
Finally, and most significantly, there is absolutely no evidence that the Employer ever saw the
letter or knew of its contents. Accordingly, I find that the letter does nothing to advance the
Respondent's contention. It does show that Rhinier, when he is so inclined, is capable of 40
inserting limitations and/or a condition precedent into collective-bargaining negotiations. That
he did not do so here, is telling.
Based on the foregoing, I find that there is no credible evidence of any clear,
unambiguous, and, timely notice being given to the Employer of any limitation of Wardrop’s 45
authority or that of any of the Respondent's negotiators. On the contrary, Wardrop’s statements
and actions led the Employer to believe that he had the authority to commit the Respondent to a
collective-bargaining agreement. Accordingly, I find that Wardrop had complete and full
authority, at all times, to enter into a final and binding collective-bargaining agreement as well as
any side agreements with the Employer.50
JD–44–11
7
Regarding the Respondent's ratification argument, Board law is clear that absent an 5
express agreement by the parties, employee ratification is not a condition precedent for the
formation of a binding collective-bargaining agreement. E.g., Valley Central Emergency
Veterinary Hospital, 349 NLRB 1126, 1132 (2007) and cited cases.
2. The repudiation of, and the refusal to execute the collective-bargaining agreement and the 10
side letter agreement
Section 8(d) of the Act requires that the parties in a collective-bargaining relationship,
once an agreement is reached, to execute that agreement at the request of either party. Section
8(b)(3) implements that obligation by making it an unfair labor practice for a union to refuse an 15
employer’s request to sign a negotiated agreement. See Graphic Communications Union District
2 (Riverwood International USA), 318 NLRB 983, 990 (1995), and cases cited. Cf. H.J. Heinz
Co. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941). This obligation only arises if the parties has a “meeting of
the minds” on all substantive issues and material terms of the agreement. See Sunrise Nursing
Home, 325 NLRB 380, 389 (1998). The collective-bargaining agreement need not be reduced to 20
writing when the “meeting of the minds” occurs. Carpenters Local 405, 328 NLRB 788, 793
(1999). The Acting General Counsel has the burden of proving that an agreement was reached.
Crittenton Hospital, 343 NLRB 717 (2004). See Intermountain Rural Electric Assn,. 309 NLRB
1189, 1192 (1992). Whether the parties have reached a “meeting of the minds” is determined
“not by the parties’ subjective inclinations, but by their intent as objectively manifested in what 25
they said to each other.” MK-Ferguson Co., 296 NLRB 776 fn. 2 (1988) If it is determined that
an agreement was reached, a party’s refusal to execute the agreement is a violation of the Act.
See H.J. Heinz Co., 311 U.S. at 525–526.
The facts surrounding the “meeting of the minds” are not in dispute. As of April 6 three 30
issues remained. Two were part of the collective-bargaining agreement and the third was the
side letter agreement regarding the Quarryville drivers. All the issues were resolved by 1:05
p.m. on April 6. The last issue to be resolved was the side letter agreement. Wardrop was given
the typed side letter agreement, marked “tentative” at 12:20 p.m. and agreed to it at 1:05 p.m.
Wardrop was shown a copy of the agreement (GC Exh. 12 at Pennsy 0109), and testified that it 35
was the document that he agreed to on April 6. Immediately thereafter the parties stood and
shook hands all around. There was an overall mood of celebration and well-being for the
accomplishment of their joint goal—drafting a new collective-bargaining agreement and side
letter agreement.
40
There was no question regarding the finality of the agreements. The parties discussed the
remaining ministerial matters. Wardrop told Robinson that he would get Rhinier to sign the
agreement and the employees to ratify it. He and Martin-Devitz discussed proofreading the final
draft and choosing a date to have it signed by the Employer.
45
I find that the counsel for the Acting General Counsel has established that the parties
reached a “meeting of the minds” on the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, including
the side letter agreement. It is obvious from the parties’ words and actions that their “tone and
temperament” on April 6 signaled their belief that they had reached a complete agreement on a
successor collective-bargaining agreement and side letter agreement. Brooks, Inc., v Ladies’ 50
Garment Workers, 835 F.2d 1164, 1169 (6th Cir. 1987). They concluded the meeting with
JD–44–11
8
handshakes and mutual expressions of satisfaction on the successful outcome of their endeavor. 5
Such conduct is a hallmark indication that a binding agreement has been reached at the end of
negotiations. E.g. Graphic Communications District 2, above. Of even greater import is
Wardrop’s admission that he approved the side letter agreement as written, without the need for
any additional modifications. Moreover, he and Martin-Devitz were scheduling the remaining
ministerial items.10
Having found that the “meeting of the minds” occurred I also find that at the same instant
all the tentatively accepted proposals morphed into the terms of a binding collective-bargaining
agreement and side letter agreement. One consequence of this change in the nature of the
documents, is that the Employer could not later withdraw its side letter proposal. The proposal 15
had been replaced with a final binding agreement. “Once the Union had accepted the
[Employer’s] last offer, there was no longer an open offer for the [Employer] to withdraw,
whether lawfully or unlawfully.” Valley Central Emergency above at 1127 fn. 6 and cited cases.
It was at the April 14 meeting, that the Employer first learned from Wardrop of the 20
numerous problems Rhinier had with the agreements and that he refused to sign any side letter
agreement. By letter dated April 15 Robinson rejected all of the points raised by Wardrop and
she demanded that Rhinier sign the agreement. In light of Rhinier’s adamant refusal to sign any
side letter agreement Robinson withdrew the agreement. As explained above the withdrawal of
the side letter agreement is a nullity. On April 30 Robinson sent Wardrop a revised side letter 25
agreement. (GC Exh. 13.) The Respondent did not respond. Both the parties’ requests for
changes may be viewed as offers to modify binding, enforceable, agreements. The Respondent's
list of issues was discussed and rejected by the Employer on April 14 and 15. The Employer’s
revised side letter agreement was never responded to by the Respondent. The rejection of both
requests by the opposite party does not alter the fact that the agreements are still binding and 30
enforceable documents. At this point neither party is under any duty to entertain any
modifications of the terms already agreed on, and the mere fact that they did and rejected them in
no way changes the fact that the agreements are still binding and enforceable contracts. See
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Auto Workers, 856 F.2d 579 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Granite State
Distributors, 266 NLRB 457, 461 (1983) (“Subsequent efforts to modify terms are ‘in no way 35
inconsistent with the existence of the previously arrived-at agreement. It is not unusual for
parties to an agreement to discuss its terms, or even to seek modification thereof, after the
agreement has been arrived at.’”)
To the extent that the Respondent argues that the side letter had to be signed by Rhinier 40
and that it was a condition precedent for a collective-bargaining agreement I reject those
arguments. Based on the foregoing I find that Respondent never put forth a condition precedent
at any time during the negotiations.
On the basis of the above I find that the parties entered into a final and binding collective-45
bargaining agreement and side letter agreement on April 6, 2010. As set forth above it is settled
law that when an employer and a union have reached agreement on terms and conditions of
employment, it is unlawful for one of the parties to refuse to sign a contract embodying the terms
of that agreement. H.J. Heinz Co. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514, 526 (1941). Accordingly, as alleged
in the complaint I find that on April 14, 2010 the Respondent repudiated both the recently agreed 50
JD–44–11
9
to collective-bargaining agreement as well as the side letter agreement and thereby violated 5
Section8(b)(3) the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer, Pennsy Supply, Inc., d/b/a Ready–Mixed Concrete, is an employer 10
engaged commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union No. 771, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Joint Council No. 53, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.15
3. By repudiating the collective-bargaining agreement and side letter agreement that the
parties agreed to on April 6 2010, the Respondent has been, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
20
4. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
25
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically I shall direct 30
the Respondent to assist the Employer in the preparation of a complete written copy of the
collective-bargaining agreement and the side letter agreement entered into by the parties on April
6, 2010.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the 35
following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union No. 771, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Joint Council No. 53, its officers, agents, 40
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Repudiating the collective-bargaining agreement and side letter agreement that the
Union agreed to on April 6 2010.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with Pennsy Supply, Inc., d/b/a Ready–45
Mixed Concrete by failing and refusing to sign the collective-bargaining agreement and side
letter agreement that the Union agreed to on April 6, 2010.

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–44–11
10
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the 5
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Adhere to our collective-bargaining agreement and side letter agreement with the
Employer during their terms and any renewals thereof. The bargaining unit is:truckdrivers,
helpers, mechanics, yard persons, and plant persons employed by the Employer.10
(b) A assist the Employer in the preparation of a complete written copy of the collective-
bargaining agreement and the side letter agreement that we entered into with the Employer on
April 6, 2010.
(c) Once complete written copies of those agreements are prepared for signature we will
sign and abide by them.15
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at their union office in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and members are 20
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees and members
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.25
(e) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for physical
and/or electronic posting by Pennsy Supply, Inc., d/b/a Ready–Mixed Concrete, if willing, at all
places or in the same manner as notices to employees are customarily posted.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that 30
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 27, 201135
____________________
JOHN T. CLARK
Administrative Law Judge40
45

3 If 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 Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–44–11
11
5
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the10
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.15
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer20
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT repudiate the collective-bargaining agreement and side letter agreement that we 25
entered into with Pennsy Supply, Inc., d/b/a Ready–Mixed Concrete on April 6 2010.
The bargaining unit is:truckdrivers, helpers, mechanics, yard persons, and plant persons
employed by the Employer.
30
WE WILL NOT any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL assist Pennsy Supply, Inc., d/b/a Ready–Mixed Concrete in the preparation of a
complete written copy of the collective-bargaining agreement and the side letter agreement we 35
entered into with Pennsy Supply, Inc., d/b/a Ready–Mixed Concrete on April 6, 2010.
WE WILL, after the complete written copies of the collective-bargaining agreement and the side
letter agreement are prepared for signature, WE WILL sign and abide by those agreements that
we entered into with Pennsy Supply, Inc., d/b/a Ready–Mixed Concrete on April 6, 2010.40
45
JD–44–11
12
Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union No.
771, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters and its Joint Council No. 53
Labor Organization
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
5
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s 10
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
615 Chestnut Street, 7th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
(215) 597-7601, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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 15
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (215) 597-5354.
20