Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 446 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc. and Teamsters Joint Council 46, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America (Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc.) and Teamsters Joint Council 46, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 3-CA-3628 and 3-CB-1187 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On May 1, 1969, Trial Examiner Paul E. Weil issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support of its exceptions. The Respondents have not filed exceptions to 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 connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.: ,in the absence of exceptions , we adopt the affirmative findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner pro forma 'The General Counsel excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner to recommend the reimbursement of dues and fees to employees coerced into joining the Respondent Union because of the union -security and checkoff provisions in the collective-bargaining agreement . We find merit to the General Counsel's exception . The union-security provision of the collective -bargaining agreement clearly requires that all employees must join the union within thirty days after the execution of the agreement. Further, employees of the Respondent Employer were informed by the Respondent Union at a meeting that they would have to join the union under the terms of the agreement or lose their jobs. Consequently we shall require that all employees who were coerced into joining the Respondent Union because of the union-security provisions of the collective -bargaining agreement are entitled to reimbursement for dues and fees paid to the Respondent Union . Specifically excluded from those eligible to receive reimbursement will be the four employees (Ronald Utterberger , George W. Sanders, William Williams , and Raymond Mills) who had designated the Respondent Union as their representative prior to the execution of the agreement. See Clement Brothers Co., Inc, 165 NLRB No. 87 and Meyer Bros of Missouri. Inc, 151 NLRB 889. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondents Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc., and International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified 1. Add the following paragraph as 2(b) of part A of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and renumber the succeeding paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Union reimburse all those employees who were coerced into becoming members of Respondent Union after the execution of the collective-bargaining agreement of July 25, 1968, or modification thereof, for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership in Respondent Union." 2. Reletter paragraphs 2(b),(c),and (d) as 2(d), (e), and (f) and add the following paragraphs as 2(b) and (c) of part B of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order: "(b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Employer reimburse all those employees who were coerced into becoming members of Respondent Union after the execution of the collective-bargaining agreement of July 25, 1968, or modification thereof, for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments , or other obligations of membership in Respondent Union, to be computed with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1142. "(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, contracts and contract bids, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order." 3. Insert the following paragraph after the last indented paragraph of Appendix A: WE WILL jointly and severally with Respondent Union make whole all those employees who were coerced into becoming members of Respondent Union after the execution of the collective-bargaining agreement of July 25, 1968, or modification thereof, for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments, or other obligations of membership in Respondent Union. 177 NLRB No. 77 JOSEPH BALL SANITATION SERVICE, INC. 4. Insert the following paragraph after the last indented paragraph of Appendix B: WE WILL jointly and severally with Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc., make all those employees who were coerced into becoming members of our organization after execution of the collective-bargaining agreement of July 25, 1968, or modification thereof, for moneys paid by them or deducted from their earnings for initiation fees, dues, assessments , or other obligations of membership in our organization. TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PAUL E. WEIL, Trial Examiner: On charges filed October 23, 1968, by Teamsters Joint Council 46, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America against Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc., hereinafter called the Respondent Employer, and against International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, hereinafter called Respondent Union, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 3 (Buffalo, New York), issued a complaint on January 10, 1969, together with order consolidating cases and notice of hearing, in which it is alleged that by entering into and maintaining a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent Union, at a time when it did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit covered by the contract, Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and Respondent Union, by its participation therein, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In their duly filed answers, both Respondents admitted receipt of the charges and corporate facts of the Respondent Employer but denied that it was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, admitted that the Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, that Joseph Ball, president of Respondent Employer, is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and that Peter Vaccarella and Richard Ackley are agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.' On the issues thus joined the hearing was held in Buffalo, New York, on March 11, 1969, at which all parties were represented and had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and adduce evidence. The parties waived oral argument; the Respondent Employer and the General Counsel filed briefs. Upon the entire record, from my observation of the witnesses and in careful consideration of the briefs, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER The Respondent Employer is a New York corporation operating a refuse removal service in and around the village of Woodlawn in the State of New York. All parties stipulated that during the 12 months preceding October 31, 1968, the Respondent Employer furnished 'Richard Ackley died after the issuance of complaint but before the hearing. 447 refuse removal services valued at $55,925.85 to enterprises each of which meets the Board's standards for the assertion of jurisdiction in the particular category in which they operate. Included, for instance, are 13 manufacturing concerns each of which annually receives or ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 across State lines; 31 retail enterprises each of which annually sells and distributes products valued in excess of $500,000 and annually receives goods valued in excess of $1,000 from points outside the State of New York; the New York Telephone Company which annually has gross revenues in excess of $100,000, over $50,000 of which was derived from the transmission of telephone communications directly across State lines; and two utility corporations each of which has gross annual revenues in excess of $250,000 and receives goods valued in excess of $10,000 from points outside the State of New York. It is clear from the stipulation that the Respondent Employer meets the standards set forth by the Board in Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. The Respondents contend nevertheless that jurisdiction in the instant case should not be asserted because Respondent Employer is primarily a local enterprise and its impact on interstate commerce is insubstantial. The Respondents contend that the real issue is whether the Employer's intrastate operation does "affect" interstate commerce in such a close and intimate fashion as to be subject to Federal control and cite N.L.R.B. v. Benevento, 297 F.2d 873 (C.A. 1), and Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197. Since 1950 when the Board first established jurisdictional "yardsticks" it has with court approval indicated that the substantiality of an employer's impact upon interstate commerce is to be measured with reference to the yardsticks it established. If the employer's business , measured by the yardstick, meets the standard the Board asserts that the impact is substantial en9ugh to warrant the assertion of jurisdiction. Through the years the Board had occasion to change the standards; the last substantial review having taken place in 1958. Section 14(c)(1) of the Act provides in pertinent part that the Board shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing upon August 1, 1959. It appears therefore that by Congressional mandate the Board may not decline to assert jurisdiction in the instant case inasmuch as the business of the Respondent, measured by the standards set forth in the Siemons case, exceed the "discretionary" limitation of the Board's exercise of its broad statutory jurisdiction. I find that Respondent Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties admit that Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and I so find. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The parties admit that they executed a collective-bargaining agreement relating to hire and terms and conditions of employment for a unit of Respondent's employees on or about July 25, 1968. The contract, a copy of which is in evidence , had attached to it when it was signed a list of all employees then in the unit purported to be covered by the contract. The list includes the names of 23 employees. 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director Vaccarella, called to the witness stand by General Counsel, indentified a list of 12 union authorization cards signed by employees of Respondent Employer and testified that they constituted all authorizations granted by Respondent Employer's employees to the Respondent Union. A comparison of the two lists reveals that as of the signing of the contract only 4 of the 23 employees in the unit had designated the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. Accordingly, the General Counsel contends that Respondent, by entering into a contract purporting to cover the entire unit with a minority union , violated the Act. Respondents contend that the contract resulted from recognition granted the Union by the Employer on December 19, 1967, at which time Respondent Union represented a majority of the employees in the unit. Respondents contend that negotiations for the contract commenced on or about December 19 and because of various factors set forth below did not culminate in a contract until July 25. They argue that under the Board's rule in Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc., 157 NLRB 583, a union and an employer must be allowed a reasonable period after recognition to complete negotiations and execute the resulting contract without the requirement that the union demonstrate its majority status after the initial recognition. Respondents also contend that the General Counsel may not go behind the recognition afforded on December 19 to investigate whether the Union represented a majority of the employees on that occasion because of the statute of limitations in Section 10(b) of the Act, relying on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Local Lodge No. 1424, IAM Bryan Manufacturing Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 362 U.S. 411, 422, in which the Court stated "a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period is directly at odds for the purposes of the Sec. 10(b) proviso." The General Counsel contends that there was no actual recognition of the Union prior to the signing of the contract but that if the Respondent Union was recognized by the Respondent Employer on December 19 the recognition was invalid because the Union was not at that time a majority representative. The General Counsel contends that by entering into a contract at the time it was a minority union the Respondent Union and the Respondent Employer per se violated the Act. The General Counsel correctly points out that the rule of Keller Plastics requires valid recognition by the employer. We are taught by the Supreme Court in Bryan that "earlier events may be utilized to shed light on the true character of matters occurring within the limitations period; and for that purpose Sec. 10(b) ordinarily does not bar such evidentiary use of anterior events." The Court distinguishes such use of time-barred evidence from the situation in which"conduct occurring within the limitations period can be charged to be an unfair labor practice only through reliance on an earlier unfair labor practice. There the use of the earlier unfair labor practice is not merely `evidentiary,' since it does not simply illuminate a putative current unfair labor practice. Rather, it serves to cloak with illegality that which was otherwise lawful." In the instant situation the unfair labor practice alleged by the General Counsel is the entering into of the contract between a minority union and the employer. The General Counsel does not allege nor seek an order based upon the unlawful recognition, if such there be, nor could he within the meaning of Section 10(b). The December 19 putative recognition is no more than background to the unfair labor practice charge and evidence sought to be introduced by the General Counsel with the view of enlightening the Board as to the true nature of the background is cognizable and, at least in this situation, relevant. The rule in Keller Plastics, appears dispositive in the instant matter. If indeed - a valid recognition of Respondent Union by, the Respondent Employer took place the Union wdtild appear to'- have a right to a reasonable period of time to negotiate its contract. The evidence with regard to the recognition is somewhat less than conclusive. iDirector Vaccarella testified that three meetings took place at the New York State Labor Relations Board offices which culminated in recognition on December 19. At one of the meetings the Union informed the Employer that they had a majority and felt that they should not have an election but should agree to negotiate a contract and settle it in that manner. He testified that the cards and the payroll lists were submitted to the commissioner of the State Labor Board who checked them and said, in essence, "Well, it's-, okay." Thereafter the parties met in the office of Respondent Employer's attorney and the Union agreed to submit a contract. Vaccarella testified that he said to Respondent, "If we can put forth a contract that you could live with would you grant us recognition." Respondent Employer's attorney answered, "Yes, on that basis." President Ball was asked whether he agreed to recognize the Union if it could make the contract satisfactory to him. He answered: A. No. I says it's going to be pretty hard on us if we can't come up with anything, that's wrong. In other words, all this was going to be was an election. This is what I had in mind. That's what I figured was going to happen. Then with Renaldo [Ball 's lawyer], he says we can go bargaining and maybe the Union can come up with a contract and if it suits you then you wouldn't have to have an election. I figured, well, if you're going to have an election well, you're going to have it. So they come up with a contract which really didn't seem - there was a few minor adjustments which we worked out and - Asked what would happen if they didn't come up with something satisfactory Ball answered, "I guess we had to choose either take the contract or there would be an election." Ball testified that the meeting in which he went over the contract with his attorney took place in March or April 1968. I conclude that there was no recognition on December 19, 1967. There was at best an agreement between the Employer and the Union that if the Union would give the Employer a satisfactory contract the Employer would recognize the Union without submitting to an election. This certainly constitutes at best a conditional recognition and until the condition was satisfied no recognition at all. If recognition took place it took place at the point where the condition was satisfied; i.e., in the meeting in Renaldo's office in March or April 1968. The only agreement that ensued from the December 19 series of discussions appears to have been an agreement to consider recognition. Thus, it does not appear that the Union's claim of majority on that date is relevant to any issue before us. _ 'The General Counsel attempted to adduce evidence that the Union did not have a majority on December 19, 1967. This evidence was in the form of a payroll list of employees furnished him by Respondent's counsel JOSEPH BALL SANITATION SERVICE, INC. 449 The question now arises whether the fulfilling of the condition for recognition in March or April constituted a recognition within the meaning of the Board's rule in Keller Plastics. As the General Counsel points out, the Keller Plastics rule is an exception to the Bernhard Altmann doctrine' that an employer and a union violated Section 8(a)(2) and 8(b)(l)(A), respectively, by executing a contract in the bona fide belief that the union represented a majority of the employees. The Board pointed out that in Bernhard Altmann recognition was invalidly granted, whereas in Keller Plastics recognition was validly granted. In Sound Contractors Association, 162 NLRB 364, the Board construed the Keller Plastics principle as requiring an affirmative showing that the employer extended recognition to the union in good faith on the basis of a previously demonstrated showing of majority and at a time when only that union was actively engaged in organizing employees.' If the employer desires to avail itself of the rule in Keller Plastics it is for the employer to produce evidence that recognition was valid and based on a previously demonstrated showing of majority interest. There is no indication on the record that in March or April Respondent Union had a majority and there is every reason to believe that it did not, inasmuch as it appears that it had no majority in December and it surely had not in July, but without relying on the figures shown, the affirmative finding that the Union represented a majority when recognition was granted, i.e., when the employer decided that the proffered contract was within its means, is the responsibility of the Respondents and is not met. Accordingly, the Keller Plastics rule is not applicable, even assuming that recognition of the nature of that shown by the Respondent, which amounts to nothing more or less than trading off recognition for a favorable contract, would otherwise satisfy the Board's criteria. With the Keller Plastics rule out of the way we are faced only with the issue whether the entering into of the contract of July 25 was an unfair labor practice. As I found above, Respondent Union did not at that time represent a majority of the employees and the Respondent Employer made no effort to ascertain whether the Union represented any. Clearly therefore the Bernhard Altmann rule applies and the employer is guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(2) and the Union of a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)• IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The acts of Respondent Employer and Respondent Union described in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent Employer described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor during the investigatory stages of this matter . I rejected the exhibit and placed it in the rejected exhibit file. The payroll shows the names of 12 employees who signed cards. Of the 12 cards, however, I was not signed until December 20 . Of these 12 employees , only 4 appear on the July 25 employee list attached to the contract . The December list also includes the names of 14 employees who did not sign cards , all of whom appear on the July 25 list. I now believe that my ruling in rejecting the exhibit was erroneous for the reason given , that is that it was time-barred evidence. However, it appears from my discussion above that the exhibit has no relevance. 'International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731. 'See Josephine Furniture Company, 172 NLRB No. 22. disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. 'CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By entering into a contract with the Respondent Union at a time when it did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit covered thereby Respondent Employer unlawfully assisted and supported the Respondent Union and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 4. By executing and maintaining the collective-bargaining agreement as found herein Respondent Union restrained and coerced and is restraining and coercing the employees of Respondent Employer in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act and Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) it will be recommended that the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. In order to dissipate the effect of Respondent Employer's unfair labor practices I shall recommend that Respondent withdraw and withhold recognition from Respondent Union as the exclusive representative of the employees concerned and cease giving effect to the aforementioned contract or any renewal or extension thereof unless and until Respondent Union shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees in question. Nothing herein should be construed to require the Respondent Employer to vary or abandon any existing term or condition of employment. With regard to Respondent Union I shall recommend that it cease maintaining and giving effect to its current collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent Employer or any renewal or extension thereof until such time as the Respondent Union shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of the employees in question. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that: A. Joseph Ball Sanitation Service, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Assisting or contributing support to the Respondent, International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization by contracting with such labor organization as the exclusive 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representative of any of its employees at a time when such labor organization has not been designated by a majority of such employees involved as such exclusive bargaining representative. (b) Giving effect to its contract of July 25 , 1968, with the Respondent Union or to any renewal , extension, modification , or supplement thereof unless and until said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Respondent Union as the exclusive representative of any of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining unless and until said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. (b) Post at its plant located in Woodlawn , New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by the Respondent Employer 's representative , 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 the Respondent Employer to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (c) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (b) above as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director copies of the Respondent Union' s notice marked "Appendix B." (d) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" to said Regional Director for posting at the offices of Respondent Union and places where notices to members and employees and prospective employees are customarily posted . Copies of the notice , on forms provided by said Regional Director, shall be returned forthwith to the Regional Director after they have been signed by an official representative of Respondent Employer for such posting. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' B. Respondent International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent Employer or any other employer as the exclusive representative of any of their employees for the purpose of collective bargaining at a time when it has not been designated as the exclusive representative by a '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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 3 , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." majority of such employees. (b) Giving effect to its contract of July 25, 1968, with the Respondent Employer or to any renewal , extension, modification , or supplement thereof unless and until it has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Respondent Employer in their exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Buffalo , New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."' Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by the Union ' s representative , shall be posted by the Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. (b) Post at the same place and under the same conditions as set forth in (a) above and as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." (c) Mail to the Regional Director signed copies of "Appendix B" for posting by Respondent Employer as provided above herein . Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director after being signed by the Respondent Union ' s representative shall be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 'See fn. 5, supra 'See fn. 6, supra APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or to any other labor organization by contracting with such labor organization as the exclusive representative of any of our employees when such labor organization has not been designated by a majority of such employees as their exclusive representative. WE WILL NOT give effect to our contract of July 25, 1968, with the above-named labor organization or to any renewal, extension , modification , or supplement thereof unless said labor organization has been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the JOSEPH BALL SANITATION SERVICE, INC. 451 above-named or any other labor organization. JOSEPH BALL SANITATION SERVICE, INC. (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, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT enter into a collective-bargaining agreement as a representative of any of the employees of Joseph Ball Sanitation Service , Inc., or any other employer at a time when we have not been designated as the exclusive representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT give effect to our contract of July 25, 1968, with the above-named employer or to any renewal, extension , modification , or supplement thereof unless and until we have been duly certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of the above-named company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Dated By INTERNATIONAL UNION OF DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) (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 members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100.