McKesson Drug Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McKesson Drug Company and David P. Malik and
Robert J. McCullough
Teamsters Local 443, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and David P. Malik and
Robert J. McCullough. Cases 39-CA-138-1,
39-CA-138-2, 39-CB-54-1, and 39-CB-54-2
July 31, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 24, 1981, Administrative Law
Judge Irwin Kaplan issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Employer
and Respondent Union filed exceptions and sup-
porting briefs.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent McKesson Drug
Company, Rocky Hill, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent
Teamsters Local 443, a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, except that the attached no-
Respondents contend that the complaint is barred by Sec. 10(b) of the
Act. We find no merit to this contention. Sec. 10(b) is a statute of limita-
lions and is tot jurisdictional in nature. It is an affirmative defense and, if
not timely raised, is waived. Vilronic Division of Penn Corporation, 239
NLRB 45 (1978) Sm'ent Council T76, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workcr. et a (New' York Telephone and Telegraph Company). 230
Nl.RB 1209, 1217 (1978), enfd. 599 F.2d 5 (Ist Cir. 1979). The record
establishes that Respondents first raised the defense of Sec. 10(b) in their
briefs to the Administrative Law Judge and did not plead or litigate the
issue at the hearing Therefore, sce agree with the Administrative l.aw
Judge that Respondents did not raise the affirmative defense of Sec. 10(b)
in a timels manner and that this defense must be considered waived.
We have modified the Administrative Law Judge's notices to conform
with his recommennded Order.
2Responldent Employer and Respondent Union have excepted to cr-
tain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the
Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's
resolutionls with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of
all of the relevant ev idence conit inces us that the resolutions are incor-
rect. Standard DI)r Wall P'roducts. Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188
F 2d 362 (d Cir 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings
:' It affirminig the )Decision and adopting the recommended Order of
the Admilistrative Law udge. ce do not rely on Mid-Weslt Piping and
Supple Clrnanr. Inc.. 63 NLRB 10W6) (1945). which we find to be ap-
plicable lo t t facts of the ilstanlt case. Unlike Mid-West Piping, the i-
stanlt case dcs lot presenit a situation here competing unions have
nmade rival cllimn fr majorit status and recognition.
257 NLRB No. 54
tices are substituted for those recommended by the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPI OYEES
POSTED) BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT recognize Teamsters Local
443, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America (herein Teamsters), as the repre-
sentative of our Rocky Hill, Connecticut, em-
ployees unless and until it has been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to
the November 1978 agreement made with
Teamsters or to any renewal, extension, modi-
fication, or supplement thereto.
WE WILL NOT- assist Teamsters in any other
manner to become the representative of our
Rocky Hill, Connecticut, employees.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in, or
activities on behalf of, Teamsters by discrimi-
nating against our employees with respect to
their hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of
employment.
WE WI.LL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge for engaging in union activities
and/or utilizing the Board's processes and WE
WIl. NOT promulgate an overly broad no-so-
licitation rule.
WE WIll. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recog-
nition from Teamsters as the representative of
our Rocky Hill, Connecticut, employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining unless
and until the said labor organization shall have
been duly certified by the Board as the exclu-
sive representative of such employees.
WE WL jointly and severally with Team-
sters reimburse all present and former Rocky
Hill, Connecticut, employees for any initiation
fees, dues, or other moneys paid or withheld
from them pursuant to the aforesaid collective-
bargaining agreement or to any agreement su-
perseding it but such reimbursement shall not
extend to any such employees who may have
468
MCKESSON DRUG COMPANY
voluntarily joined and been members of Team-
sters prior to October 1, 1979.
McKESSON DRUG COMPANY
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT act as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of McKesson Drug Compa-
ny's Rocky Hill, Connecticut, employees
unless and until we have been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of such employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT give any force or effect to
our contract with McKesson Drug Company
executed around November 1978, insofar as it
applies to the Rocky Hill facility, or to any
modification, extension, renewal, or supple-
ment thereto.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with McKes-
son Drug Company reimburse present and
former Rocky Hill, Connecticut, employees,
for any initiation fees, dues, or other moneys
paid or withheld from them pursuant to the
aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement or
any agreement susperseding it but such reim-
bursement shall not extend to any such em-
ployees who may have voluntarily joined and
been members of our Union prior to October
1, 1979.
TEAMSTERS LOCAl. 443, A/W INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEANI-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
DECISION
STATEMNIIT 01 TIHE C.AS:
IRWIN KAPI.AN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard in Hartford, Connecticut, on September 15
and 16, 1980. The original charges were filed against
McKesson Drug Company (herein also Respondent
McKesson or McKesson) on February 21, 1980 (Case
39-CA-138), and February 25, 1980 (Case 39-CA-138-
2), by individuals David Malick and Robert McCul-
lough. respectively, and amended by said Malick (Case
39-CA-138-1) and McCullough (Case 39-CA-138-2) on
April 28, 1980. The original charges were filed against
Teamsters Local 443, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (herein also Respondent Teamsters or Team-
sters), by the aforenamed individuals, David Malick and
Robert McCullough, on March 19, 1980, in Case 39-CB-
54-1 and Case 39-CB-54-2, respectively. The aforenoted
charges and amendment thereto against McKesson and
the charges against the Teamsters (collectively Respond-
ents) gave rise to an order consolidating cases, consoli-
dated complaint, and notice of hearing issued on May 9,
1980.
The consolidated complaint in essence alleged that,
commencing in or about September 1979 and continuing
to date, Respondent McKesson rendered assistance and
support to Respondent Teamsters by: (a) permitting the
Teamsters to utilize McKesson's Rocky Hill, Connecti-
cut, facility to hold meetings with McKesson's employ-
ees; (b) urging its employees to sign Teamsters member-
ship cards and checkoff authorizations: and (c) withhold-
ing certain wages of its employees and transmitting same
to Respondent Teamsters as union dues and initiation
fees notwithstanding the absence of valid employee au-
thorizations. Further, in or about September 1979, Re-
spondent McKesson granted recognition to Respondent
Teamsters for its nonsupervisory employees employed at
its Rocky Hill, Connecticut, facility and during the same
month Respondents entered into, maintained, and en-
forced a collective-bargaining agreement containing,
inter alia, a union-security provision. By engaging in the
aforenoted acts and conduct, it is alleged that Respond-
ents McKesson and Teamsters violated Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), respectively,
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
called the Act). Still further, it is alleged that Respond-
ent McKesson in October 1979 independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (a) threatening its employ-
ees with discharge unless they signed Teamsters member-
ship cards; (b) threatening its employees with discharge
because they circulated a petition seeking an election to
determine their collective-bargaining representative; (c)
interrogating its employees about their union activities
and about their utilization of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board's (herein called the Board) processes: (d) cre-
ating the impression among its employees that their
union activities and utilization of the Board's processes
were under its surveillance; and (e) promulgating, main-
taining, and enforcing by verbal announcement an overly
broad no-solicitation rule.
Respondents McKesson and Teamsters filed separate
answers conceding, inter alia, certain jurisdictional facts
but each denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices. Further, Respondents McKesson and Team-
sters in their respective briefs raised for the first time
that all matters pertaining to recognition and the con-
tract at Rocky Hill are time barred by Section 10(b) of
the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses and after careful consider-
ation of the post-trial briefs, I find as follo,,s:
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISI)CTIxON
At all times material herein Respondent McKesson has
maintained an office and place of business in Rocky Hill,
Connecticut, wherefrom it has been engaged in the
wholesale distribution of drug and pharmaceutical prod-
ucts. In connection with the aforenoted business oper-
ations, and during an appropriate 12-month time frame,
Respondent McKesson has sold and shipped from its
Connecticut facilities products, goods, and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Connecticut. Respondent McKesson admits, the
record discloses, and I find that it is now and has been at
all times material herein, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. I.ABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOI.VE.)
Respondent Teamsters admits, and I find, that it is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
It is alleged, the record disclosed, and I find that
Local 566, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO (herein RWDSU), is now, and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IIL. THI- ALII.EGEI) UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
A. The Setting
McKesson is a distributor of pharmaceuticals, cosmet-
ics, and other sundry items, servicing in the main retail
and chain drugstores and hospitals. It owns and operates
some 60 distribution centers where it receives merchan-
dise from a multitude of suppliers and in turn ships this
merchandise to the various retail outlets and hospitals. In
1978 McKesson's facilities included a distribution center
in Springfield, Massachusetts, a distribution center in
New Haven, Connecticut, and a smaller branch in East
Hartford, Connecticut,' the facilities involved herein. At
that time McKesson's warehouse employees and drivers
employed in Springfield and New Haven were represent-
ed by the RWDSU since around 1972 and Teamsters up-
wards of 20 years, respectively, and the East Hartford
employees were unrepresented.
In 1978, Respondent McKesson decided to consolidate
its Springfield, New Haven, and East Hartford oper-
ations into a single unit and began a search for a loca-
tion, settling on a site in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.
By letters dated June 2, 1978, McKesson's personnel
manager, Milton Lewis, Jr., wrote to Edward Brereton
' Respondent McKesson characterized the East Hlartlord facility as a
"rex unit" in distinguishing it fronl the much larger "full lile" facilities i
Springfield ad New Haven. Thus. the inventory iniolving the "rex unit"
consists of approximately 3.0() to 4,00(X) items which are housed in a fa-
cility (of approlxiinately h,(X) squlare feet hcreas the "full line" inslentory
comprises approximately 15,11X) to 17,(X)0 items hich are housed in
facilities of approximately 50.(XX) square feet As ill be no(ted ira Ihere
were substantiall fewer employees in Fast Harilrtford than in Springfield
or Ne, Haven
and John Foley of the Teamsters and RWDSU, respec-
tively, confirming earlier telephone conversations where-
by he had advised them of negotiations between the
Company and the town of Rocky Hill regarding a site
for a new distribution center. (G.C. Exhs. 4 and 5.) In
this connection Lewis pointed out that, if the talks with
the Rocky Hill Planning Commission over zoning re-
strictions were successful, it was anticipated that the deal
would be finalized over the next few weeks. Lewis then
promised to keep Brereton and Foley posted and ex-
pressed a willingness to meet and bargain "if a decision is
made which would have an economic impac[t]" on their
"membership[s]." (G.C. Exh. 5; see also G.C. Exh. 4.)
While in Lewis' letter to Brereton he expressed a "hope"
that employees "would continue their service with the
Company" (G.C. Exh. 4), this sentiment was omitted
from his letter to Foley. (G.C. Exh. 5.)
McKesson's manager of labor and employee relations,
William Momaney,2 testified that as a result of the Com-
pany's June 2 letter (G.C. Exh. 4) the Teamsters request-
ed bargaining concerning the impact of the decision to
consolidate the three units. Momaney testified that these
negotiations culminated in a contract (G.C. Exh. 2)
which McKesson and the Teamsters contend encom-
passed the units that were to be consolidated at Rocky
Hill whenever that facility became operational.a In this
connection Momaney by letter dated November 27,
1978, wrote to the Teamsters in relevant part as follows:
Due to the uncertain time frame in relocating to our
Rocky Hill facility, I thought it perhaps would be
beneficial to all parties to signify their acceptance of
those items agreed to at negotiations but not includ-
ed in the labor agreement.
If you would kindly acknowledge the enclosed by
affixing your signature where noted, I will secure
Company signatures and return complete docu-
ments to you for your files. [G.C. Exh. 6.]
According to Momaney, McKesson accorded recogni-
tion to the Teamsters in November 1978 for the planned
consolidated unit at Rocky Hill because it alone had de-
manded recognition and Respondent Company under-
stood on the basis of informal polls that, of the employ-
ees employed at the Springfield, New Haven, and East
Hartford facilities who were willing to transfer, a major-
ity of them were from New Haven. Thus, Momaney tes-
tified that, of the approximately 46 unit employees who
expressed a willingness to transfer to Rocky Hill, ap-
proximately 30 of them were from New Haven (under
A portion f Mmonae'v * testimornly was no carried on tape Counsel
for the General Counsel by a motioin to supplement the record dated No-
vemhber 7, 1980, has nmoled for the receipt in evidence as Jt. Exh I Mo-
lmaney' testimony ;as reconstructed by counsel for Respondent McKes-
son As all parties hase joined ill the motion, it is hereby granted and the
testimony as reconstructed i received as Jt. Exh. .
-: he contract in pertinenlt part describes the bargaining unit as
'cover[lngl all warehouse eniploees ad drivers in the Company's Con-
cclticut Distribution Cttr ." ((i.C. Exh. 2.) It) its terms the con-
tract is ffectixe front Noembher 1, 1978. unrtil Octobher 31. 1981. The
RockN Hill fcility did not hecome operalional util August or Septem-
hcer 197')
470
MCKESSON DRUG COMPANY
Teamsters contract).4 Momaney testified without contra-
diction that the RWDSU never demanded recognition
for employees at Rocky Hill. According to Momaney, he
and Respondent Company's zone general manager, Jack
Smith, met with Foley in September 1978 and advised
him that Springfield as well as the New Haven and East
Hartford facilities would close and consolidate to form
the new Rocky Hill distribution center. Momaney testi-
fied that Foley asked whether the Company would offer
Springfield employees employment at the Rocky Hill fa-
cility and expressed pleasure on learning that offers
would be made, but he did not demand recognition for
that location.5
According to Momaney it was originally anticipated
that the Company would commence operations at the
Rocky Hill facility in May 1979. As noted earlier, the
Rocky Hill location did not become operational until
August or September 1979. 6 Jane Downey, regional
manager for McKesson's northern region which encom-
passed the facilities involved herein testified that "[flrom
very early in 1979 up until the time . . . before the move
took place . . . the vast majority of [New Haven em-
ployees] were planning to transfer [to Rocky Hill]." In
addition, Downey testified that she had information at
that time that the small group of East Hartford employ-
ees were planning to move as well as approximately 50
percent of the Springfield employees although she assert-
ed that this latter group continued to drop in number "as
time went on."' According to Downey, when she visited
these locations in mid-July, "maybe a handful of people
from Springfield . . . indicat[ed] that they were definite-
ly going to [Rocky Hill]"; whereas 60 to 70 percent of
the New Haven unit employees indicated a continued in-
terest in transferring to the new location.
In July or August, McKesson's Springfield distribution
center manager, Nick Bekish, met with employees em-
ployed at that location individually in his office to dis-
cuss, inter alia, the terms of the transfer to Rocky Hill.S
The employees were told by Bekish that the Springfield
location would soon close and they had the option to
transfer to Rocky Hill or be terminated with severance
pay. Bekish pointed out to the Springfield employees
that if they elected to transfer to the new location in
Rocky Hill they would be covered by the Teamsters
contract. Robert Quigley, a shop steward at Springfield
and a RWDSU member, testified that he questioned
4 Momaney testified that he anticipated a unit complement of about 48
employees at the Rocky Hill Distribution Center. While the record does
not disclose the precise employee complement at the three locations in
September 1978, Momaney testified that in mid-July 1978 there were ap-
proximately 35 unit employees employed in New Haven, 25 in Spring-
field, and 6 in East Hartford.
I Neither Smith nor Foley testified nor did they appear at the hearing.
Smith was no longer employed by Respondent Company at the time of
the hearing.
'All dates hereinafter refer to 1979 unless otherwise noted.
The record discloses that the commute from East Hartford to Rocky
Hill is about 20 minutes. Springfield and New Haven are each approxi-
mately 40 miles from Rocky Hill.
" The Springfield employees first learned about the decision to close
and to consolidate at a new location in late 1978.
Bekish regarding an election to determine the bargaining
agent and the latter responded negatively.'
The record discloses that on August 6 and 7 Respond-
ent Company hired approximately 12 new employees to
work at the Rocky Hill facility. (G.C. Exh. 7.) One of
those employees, David Malick, testified that in late July
he was among a group of approximately 12 applicants
and they all attended a meeting addressed by Bekish and
Smith. According to Malick, the applicants were told at
this meeting that the Rocky Hill facility was going to be
a union shop but did not identify the Union. to
The Springfield and East Hartford facilities shut down
permanently in August. On August 27 all six East Hart-
ford employees as well as eight employees from Spring-
field transferred to Rocky Hill. (G.C. Exh. 7.) The New
Haven employees (only six in number) did not transfer to
the new consolidated location until September 10. Ap-
proximately 1 week after the New Haven employees
transferred, a petition was circulated among the Rocky
Hill employees calling for an election to determine their
bargaining agent, but it did not identify any union by
name. According to Quigley and Robert McCullough
(another former Springfield employee), after an over-
whelming majority of the employees signed the petition,
the two of them met with Rocky Hill Distribution Man-
ager Richard Corcoran and told him of the employees'
sentiment and that they were going to file said petition
with the Board.t Corcoran conceded meeting with
Quigley and McCullough, but denied that he had any
discussion with them about a petition. According to Cor-
coran, Quigley and McCullough requested that he check
with his superiors to determine whether the employees
were bound by the Teamsters contract and he in turn
discussed the subject with Smith. It is undisputed that,
later the same day, Corcoran advised Quigley and
McCullough that the Teamsters contract covered the
Rocky Hill distribution center and the Company was ob-
ligated to abide by its terms.
In October, Corcoran in the presence of other compa-
ny officials introduced Teamsters Business Representa-
tives Felix Del Guidice and Lou Amendola to Rocky
Hill employees at two separate meetings on the same day
which were held in the lunchroom at that distribution
center. The drivers, approximately 15 in number, attend-
ed a meeting held at approximately 8 a.m. (the workday
started at 7 a.m.) and lasting 1-1/2 hours. Quigley ques-
9 The record discloses that Bekish suffered a heart attack in late August
or early September and has since been a permanently disabled. Bekish did
not testify nor did he appear at the hearing.
'o On the basis of demeanor, responsiveness, consistency, and plausibil-
ity of testimony, I found Malick to be an impressive witness. It is also
noted that Malick was still employed by Respondent Company at the
time of the hearing and as such he testified against self-interest, a matter
not to be lightly disregarded. See, e.g., Federal Stainless Sink Div. of
Unarco Industries. Inc., 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972): Gateway Transporta-
tion Co.. Inc.., 193 NLRB 47, 48 (1971); Georgia Rug Mill. 131 NLRB
1304, 1305, fn. 2 (1961). Still further, Malick's testimony in large part
went uncontroverted. In short, I credit Malick' testimony in all critical
respects.
" The petition was never filed with the Board. According to Quigley,
he spoke with a Board agent from the Board's Boston Regional OfTce
and to Business Agent Foley as to whether he (Quigley) or the RWDSU
should file the petition and the matter became too complicated. "['so it
was dropped."
471
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioned Del Guidice regarding the basis of having the
Teamsters contract apply to Rocky Hill given the fact
that only six employees from New Haven transferred
and Del Guidice explained that the contract covered
McKesson's Connecticut division which included that lo-
cation. According to Quigley and McCullough, Del Gui-
dice told the employees at that meeting, inter alia, that
the former Springfield employees would not have to pay
Teamsters initiation fees but that the new employees and
the previously unrepresented former East Hartford em-
ployees had to pay such fees, and all employees had to
join the Teamsters within 30 days as a condition of con-
tinued employment. While Del Guidice conceded that he
told employees that they had to join the Union and that
Springfield employees were exempted from initiation
fees, he denied that he set any time frame and averred
that the exemption for initiation fees was extended also
to former East Hartford employees.
The next meeting was for the warehouse employees
and was held immediately after the meeting attended by
the drivers. Malick, a warehouse employee, ascribed to
Del Guidice substantially the same remarks in that later
meeting as had Quigley and McCullough in the earlier
session. Thus Malick testified that Del Guidice told the
warehouse employees that if they did not join the Union
they would be out of jobs and that new employees had
to pay initiation fees. Malick, Quigley, and McCullough
testified that Corcoran reminded employees to sign union
cards which were distributed at these meetings. Malick
also testified that this meeting with Teamsters officials
was the first he heard of the Union since he began work-
ing for McKesson and he signed a Teamsters card on
that occasion." The Company's officials, including Cor-
coran, were in attendance at these meetings during the
entire session. According to Corcoran, his participation
was limited to introducing the business agents and invit-
ing questions from employees to the Union's representa-
tive regarding wages, benefits, and the validity of the
contract. Corcoran denied saying anything to employees
about signing union cards. It is undisputed that Team-
sters Steward Frank Alongi, Sr., passed around union
cards for employees to sign at these meetings. 'S
Quigley testified that, immediately after the meeting
with Teamsters officials ended, he returned to the ship-
ping area to continue sorting invoices which he had
begun doing before the meeting was called. According
to Quigley, Corcoran approached him and asked wheth-
er he was through filing petitions with the Labor Board
and added, "You know that's soliciting on company
time. It's against company rules and you can be fired."
Corcoran conceded that he broached the subject of so-
licitation but denied making any reference to filing peti-
tions with the Board. According to Corcoran, on the oc-
casion in question, Operations Manager Rick Robbins in-
formed him that Quigley had conducted a meeting with
12 While Malick testified that as an applicant in July he was told by
company officials that the Rocky Hill facility was a union shop, he also
credibly testified (as previously noted) that the Union was not identified.
"' The union dues and checkoff provisions of the McKesson-Teamsters
contract were not effectuated until sometime in October after these meet-
ings took place. Previous thereto, McKesson had deducted (RWDSU)
union dues from the former Springfield employees for which they were
reimbursed in October.
some employees in a corner of the warehouse and he,
Corcoran, thereupon went to the shipping area and ap-
proached Quigley and informed him that "-t]he rules are
that there are not to be any unauthorized meetings when
people are supposed to be working." 14
B. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Recognition and the Teamsters contract executed
in 1978
The critical facts giving rise to the bargaining relation-
ship and the disputed contract between Respondents
McKesson and Teamsters relative to the Rocky Hill fa-
cility are summarized and discussed as follows.
In 1978 Respondent McKesson decided to close its dis-
tribution center in Springfield, Massachusetts, as well as
its distribution centers in New Haven and East Hartford,
Connecticut, and to consolidate these facilities at a new
location. The Company commenced negotiations for the
new consolidated site with the town of Rocky Hill and
advised the Teamsters and RWDSU of these negotia-
tions. By letters dated June 1978 (G.C. Exhs. 4 and 5),
the Teamsters (New Haven) and RWDSU (Springfield)
were notified, inter alia, of the Company's willingness to
bargain over the impact of its decision to consolidate on
their respective memberships (East Hartford was un-
represented).
McKesson's manager of labor and employee relations,
William Momaney, testified that he met with the Team-
sters and RWDSU concerning the impact of the Compa-
ny's decision to consolidate and only the Teamsters re-
quested recognition for the employees at Rocky Hill. Re-
spondent McKesson contemplated a nonsupervisory
work force of approximately 48 employees at the new lo-
cation (Jt. Exhs. I and 9). According to Momaney, on
the basis of informal employee interviews, the Company
anticipated that approximately 30 employees would
transfer from New Haven to Rocky Hill thereby giving
the Teamsters a clear majority at that new location. Mo-
maney testified that, in these circumstances and as no
other union demanded recognition for the employees at
Rocky Hill,' 5 he recognized the Teamsters as the bar-
gaining agent for the employees at that location.
4 I credit Quigley's version over the account provided by Corcoran. In
doing so it is noted, inter alia, that Quigley's testimony in other disputed
areas was supported by corroborative testimony. For example, Del
Gudice denied (as noted previously) giving employees any specific time
frame by which to sign union cards. Quigley testified, however, with cor-
roboration from other witnesses including Corcoran, that Del Guidice
gave employees 30 days to sign union cards. On the other hand, Corcor-
an's testimony in a number of significant areas including the circum-
stances leading to his verbal encounter with Quigley was uncorroborated.
Thus it is noted, inter alia, that Operations Manager Robbins did not tes-
tify. Moreover I found Corcoran's overall testimony uncertain and incon-
sistent, further reflecting adversely on his credibility. For example, Corco-
ran first stated categorically that McKesson had posted its no-solicitation
rules (Resp. Exh. I) in Springfield and New Haven and then retreated,
admitting that he did not know whether the rules had ever been posted
at those locations.
'" Momaney testified that he met with John Foley, business agent of
the RWDSU, in September 1978 and they discussed, inter alia, the ap-
proximate date for closing the Springfield facility. While Momaney testi-
fied that Foley never requested recognition, this by itself is not tanta-
mount to a disclaimer of representative status, particularly as the record
Continued
472
MCKESSON DRUG COMPANY
In late November or early December 1978 McKesson
and the Teamsters executed a 3-year renewal collective-
bargaining agreement "cover[ing] all warehouse employ-
ees and drivers in the Company's Connecticut Distribu-
tion Center . . 6 (G.C. Exh. 2.) Respondents contend
that the aforenoted agreement contemplated and covered
the Rocky Hill facility whenever it was to become oper-
ational. Respondent McKesson in its brief asserted that it
acted lawfully and in good faith by recognizing and bar-
gaining with the Teamsters vis-a-vis Rocky Hill. Accord-
ing to Respondent McKesson, "it had no inkling that the
Teamsters lacked majority support at Rocky Hill until
the very eve of that facility's opening."
This case, however, does not turn on "good faith."
The inescapable fact is that the Teamsters at no material
time represented a majority of the Rocky Hill employ-
ees. 7 In November 1978 when Respondent McKesson
recognized the Teamsters for the Rocky Hill location,
the Company not only did not have any employees at
Rocky Hill, but as testified by Momaney, "There was no
building (in Rocky Hill) at that time."18 As noted by the
Board in General Cinema Corporation, and Its Wholly
Owned Subsidiary, Gentilly Woods Cinema, 214 NLRB
1074, 1075 (1974), where the respondent recognized a
union for its projectionists when it had not hired any:
This constitutes premature recognition in its barest
form. It has long been settled that premature recog-
nition of a nonrepresentative union, absent accre-
tion, unlawfully assists the union, regardless of the
employer's good faith or the absence of a question
concerning representation. [Emphasis supplied.]
In the case at bar the parties were at liberty to execute
a renewal contract vis-a-vis New Haven. The parties
could not, however, extend coverage of the disputed re-
newal contract to a facility which had not yet com-
menced operations (Rocky Hill) at a time when no em-
ployees were yet hired for that facility. By doing so in
effect, the parties converted the agreement insofar as it
does not establish that the Company appraised Foley of all the material
facts. For example, Momaney conceded that he did not disclose to Foley
that the Teamsters was demanding recognition for the employees at
Rocky Hill. In this regard it is noted that more employees eventually
transferred to Rocky Hill from Springfield than from New Haven (G.C.
Exh. 7). Moreover, any demand by Foley in September 1978 would have
been premature as there were no employees then employed at Rocky
Hill.
1 The General Counsel noted that the "execution of the contract" oc-
curred outside the 10(b) period and accordingly did not allege it indepen-
dently as violative of Sec. 8(aX2).
11 The record disclosed that the Rocky Hill location opened in August
1979. During that first month the work force was comprised of approxi-
mately 20 new hires, 6 transferees from East Hartford, and 8 transferees
from Springfield. Thus none of the employees employed at Rocky Hill
during the first month of operations were "Teamsters" or former New
Haven employees. (G.C. Exh. 7.) Only six employees transferred from
New Haven and that occurred on September 10. As of October I, there
were approximately 63 employees at Rocky Hill of which only 6 were
former New Haven employees. The vast majority of the employees at
Rocky Hill in October 1979 were new employees.
1" It is also noted that Rocky Hill did not become operational until
either the final stages of permanently shutting down the New Haven fa-
cility had begun or that facility had already actually closed. In either
event. New Haven was no longer a iable facility for purposes of accre-
tion. See Bristol Consolidators. Inc., 239 NLRB 602, 605 (1978).
related to Rocky Hill into a prehire contract. See
Hudson Berlind Corporation, 203 NLRB 421, 422 (1973),
enfd. 494 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir. 1976). However, the Gener-
al Counsel conceded that findings of unlawful assistance
and support by Respondent McKesson and acceptance of
same by Respondent Teamsters vis-a-vis recognition and
execution of the renewal contract in 1978 insofar as it
pertained to Rocky Hill are time barred by Section 10(b)
of the Act.' 9 On the other hand, the General Counsel
contends and I find that subsequent acts and conduct, in-
cluding recognition of the Teamsters as the bargaining
agent for the employees at Rocky Hill around the third
week in September 1979, coercive meetings with em-
ployees in October 1979 on behalf of the Teamsters, and
application of the disputed Teamsters contract in or
around October 1979, are cognizable in the circum-
stances of this case for the reasons discussed below. See,
e.g., N.L.R.B. v. R. L. Sweet Lumber Company, 207
NLRB 529, 536 (1973), enfd. 515 F.2d 785 (10th Cir.
1975), cert. denied 423 U.S. 986.
2. The 10(b) defense and application of the contract
to Rocky Hill employees
The parties stipulated at the hearing that at all material
times the Teamsters contract had been applied to em-
ployees at Rocky Hill. It is not possible to discern what
the parties contemplated by "material times" given the
fact that Respondents McKesson and Teamsters in their
respective briefs raised for the first time that all allega-
tions relative to recognition and the contract at Rocky
Hill are time barred by Section 10(b). The complaint al-
leged September 1979 as the material date whereby rec-
ognition was accorded and the contract containing, inter
alia, a union-security clause was entered into, maintained,
and enforced. (G.C. Exh. (m), pars. 13-15). Respondent
Teamsters in its answer admitted these allegations in
their entirety (G.C. Exh. l(o)), whereas Respondent
McKesson denied only the alleged September date (G.C.
Exh. (p)). Neither party set forth an affirmative defense.
The 10(b) proviso does not impose a jurisdictional limita-
tion upon the Board but is a statute of limitations.
N.L.R.B. v. A. E. Nettleton Co., et al., 241 F.2d 130, 133
(2d Cir. 1957); A. H. Belo Corporation (WFAA-TV) v.
N.L.R.B., 411 F.2d 959, 966-967 (5th Cir. 1969). As
such, it is an affirmative defense and, if not timely raised,
is waived. Vitronic Division of Penn Corporation, 239
NLRB 45, fn. 1 (1978); System Council T-6, B.E. W., et
al. (New York Telephone and Telegraph Company), 236
NLRB 1209, 1217 (1978), enfd. 599 F.2d 5 (Ist Cir.
1979); Barton Brands, Ltd., 215 NLRB 416 (1974);
N.L.R.B. v. A. E. Nettleton Co., et al., supra (absent ex-
traordinary circumstances). As no reason has been ad-
vanced by Respondents for failing to raise this issue
'9 The original charges against Respondent McKesson (G.C Exh. I(a))
and Respondent Teamsters (G.C. Exhs. I(e) and (g)) were filed on Febru-
ary 21 and March 19, 1980. respectively. Sec. 10(b) provides in pertinent
part that:
[N]o complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice oc-
curring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with
the Board ..
473
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
heretofore, I find the 10(b) defense is untimely.
20 Ac-
cordingly I do not find any legally sufficient impediment
to consideration of these allegations on their merits.
As noted previously, the Rocky Hill facility opened in
August with approximately 20 new employees. On
August 27, 14 employees were added to the work force
at Rocky Hill and all of them had transferred either from
Springfield (RWDSU) or East Hartford (unrepresented).
There were only six employees at New Haven (Team-
sters) who elected to transfer and that did not occur
until September 10. According to Respondent McKes-
son, as stated in its brief, it did not learn until "the very
eve of that facility's opening" that a majority of the
Rocky Hill employees would not support the Teamsters
and then it made "no attempt to enforce the union secu-
rity and check off provisions of the Teamster contract."
On the other hand, the Company continued to deduct
union dues from the wages of the former Springfield em-
ployees on behalf of the RWDSU. Thus for the entire
month of September the former Springfield employees
faced the anomalous circumstance of working under two
different union-security contracts (Teamsters and
RWDSU) although only the RWDSU union-security
provision was enforced as to those employees. To
counter this confusion, Quigley and McCullough around
the third week in September circulated a petition among
the employees calling for an election to determine the
bargaining agent for them at Rocky Hill. On some un-
specified day in September Quigley and McCullough in-
formed Distribution Center Manager Corcoran that em-
ployees had signed a petition calling for an election. Cor-
coran checked with his superior and later the same day
conveyed to Quigley and McCullough that the Company
would honor the Teamsters contract.
2
1
Approximately I week later in early October, Re-
spondent McKesson summoned its employees to the dis-
tribution center lunchroom for group meetings with rep-
resentatives of the Teamsters. Corcoran, who had not
previously met the Teamsters representatives, introduced
them to the employees while explaining that said Team-
sters representatives were there to answer "[employee]
questions regarding wages and benefits and the validity
I In any event the 10(b) period does not commence running until the
affected employees are put on notice of the facts constituting the unfair
labor practice. See Hot Bagels and Donuts of Staten Island. Inc., 227
NLRB 1597 (1977); Wisconsin River Valley District Council of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Skippy En-
terprises). 211 NLRB 222, 227 (1974). In the instant case, the new em-
ployees were not told of the Teamsters contract until October 1979 al-
though some of them were told before the Rocky Hill facility became
operational that it would be union shop. Insofar as former Springfield
employees were told of the Teamsters contract in July 1979, those em-
ployees were not then employed by McKesson at Rocky Hill. See Dia-
mond International Corporation, Calmar Division, 229 NLRB 1334, 1336
(1977). It was not until around the third week in September that Corco-
ran told Quigley and McCullough that the Company would honor the
Teamsters contract for the Rocky Hill facility (as will be further noted
infra).
" In finding that Respondent McKesson unlawfully assisted and sup-
ported the Teamsters I do so principally on the basis that the Teamsters
did not at any time material herein represent an uncoerced majority. It is
also noted as contended by the General Counsel that under Midwest
Piping d Supply Co., 63 NLRB 1060 (1945), and its progeny Respondent
McKesson was obligated to remain neutral where, as here, there are two
unions with potential representative claims. See Hudson Berlind Corpora-
tion, 'upra at 423.
of the contract." Employees Malick, Quigley, and
McCullough credibly testified that Business Representa-
tive Del Guidice told the employees, inter alia, that they
would have to sign union cards or they would be out of
a job. Del Guidice confirmed as much by admitting that
he told the employees that they had to join the union as
a condition of employment. Teamsters membership cards
were circulated and the credited testimony discloses that
Corcoran reminded the employees that they had to sign
these cards. In these circumstances noting particularly
that the Teamsters had not at any time material herein
represented an uncoerced majority at Rocky Hill, I find
that, by making accessible the Rocky Hill facility to the
Teamsters and then joining said Teamsters in its exhorta-
tion to employees to sign membership cards under the
threat of discharge, Respondent McKesson thereby ren-
dered aid and support to Respondent Teamsters in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) as alleged. See Hudson
Berlind Corporation, supra; Bristol Consolidators, Inc.,
supra.
It is undisputed that, commencing in October, Re-
spondent McKesson deducted initiation fees and union
dues from the wages of employees under the union-secu-
rity provision in the Teamsters contract. Inasmuch as
McKesson gave effect to the union-security clause con-
tained in the Teamsters contract found herein to have
been applied to employees at Rocky Hill in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) and (2), I further find that Respondent
McKesson also discriminated with respect to hire and
tenure of employment in violation of Section 8(a)() and
(3) of the Act. See Schreiber Trucking Company, 148
NLRB 697, 703 (1964); Bristol Consolidators, Inc., supra;
Hudson Berlind Corporation, supra.
With respect to Respondent Teamsters, I find that, by
accepting recognition at a time when it did not represent
an uncoerced majority of the employees at the Rocky
Hill facility and then participating in the administration
or application of a contract containing a union-security
clause in circumstances violative of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3) of the Act, it thereby violated Section 8(b)(l)(A)
and (2) of the Act. Desco Vitro-Glaze of Schenectady, Inc.,
230 NLRB 379 (1977); Bristol Consolidators, Inc., supra at
605.
3. The 8(a)(1) allegations
The 8(a)(1) allegations are predicated on a verbal en-
counter between Corcoran and Quigley on the day
Teamsters representatives first met with employees at
Rocky Hill and shortly after the meeting attended by
Quigley. According to Corcoran, Operations Manager
Rollins told him that Quigley was conducting a meeting
with some employees in a corner of the warehouse and
he, Corcoran, then informed "[Quigley] that the Rules
are that there are not to be any unauthorized meetings
when people are supposed to be working."
Quigley's credited version is that Corcoran ap-
proached him on the occasion in question and asked if he
"was through filing petitions with the Labor Board."
Corcoran then added, "You know that's soliciting on
Company time. It's against company rules. And you
could be fired." I find that the no-solicitation rule as an-
474
MCKESSON DRUG COMPANY
nounced by Corcoran to Quigley was overly broad in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) 22 and that Respondent
McKesson thereby unlawfully threatened to discharge
said Quigley as alleged.
On the other hand, I find the remarks ascribed to Cor-
coran and the circumstances too ambiguous and unclear
to conclude that they otherwise violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. For example, without more, I find it unlikely
that Corcoran was actually attempting to elicit a re-
sponse from Quigley regarding the filing of a Board peti-
tion. Nor do I find that Corcoran's remarks conveyed
the impression of surveillance as alleged. In this connec-
tion it is noted that it was Quigley, a week or two earli-
er, who volunteered that he was involved in a petition
calling for an election. Moreover the credible evidence
did not establish whether Quigley was involved in union
or related activities on that occasion. Rather, I find that
Corcoran's statement was somewhat rhetorical but moti-
vated to inhibit Quigley from engaging in union activities
and utilization of the Board processes. In these circum-
stances I am unpersuaded that Respondent coercively in-
terrogated employees or conveyed the impression of sur-
veillance as alleged. Accordingly, I shall dismiss these al-
legations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent McKesson Drug Company is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Teamsters Local 443, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local 566, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. Respondent McKesson has rendered unlawful assist-
ance and support to a labor organization by recognizing
Respondent Teamsters and giving effect to a collective-
bargaining agreement with said Respondent Teamsters
for employees employed by Respondent McKesson at its
Rocky Hill, Connecticut, facility, when said Respondent
Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of
employees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
5. Respondent McKesson has discriminated, and is dis-
criminating, in regard to hire or tenure or terms of con-
ditions of employment of its employees, thereby encour-
aging membership in a labor organization, by maintaining
a union-security clause in a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with a minority union, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. Respondent McKesson threatened employees with
discharge for engaging in union activities and/or utiliz-
ing the Board's processes and promulgated an overly
broad and unlawful no-solicitation rule, thereby restrain-
ing and coercing employees in the exercise of their Sec-
tion 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
7. Respondent Teamsters, by accepting recognition
and giving effect to a collective-bargaining agreement
z2 See Birmingham Ornamental Iron Company. 240 NLRB 898 (1979).
containing a union-security clause for employees em-
ployed at the Rocky Hill facility notwithstanding that it
did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees at
any time material, thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Other than as set forth above, Respondents have not
violated the Act as alleged.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondents committed unfair
labor practices by giving effect to a collective-bargaining
agreement containing a union-security provision under
circumstances violative of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3)
on the part of Respondent McKesson and Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) on the part of Respondent Teamsters,
Respondents will be required jointly and severally to re-
imburse all present and former employees, except those
excluded below, for all initiation fees, dues, or other
moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the unlawful
union-security provision with interest thereon to be com-
puted as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). Reimbursement, however, will not
extend to any such employees who may have voluntarily
joined and been members of Respondent Teamsters prior
to October 1, 1979. See Bristol Consolidators, Inc., supra
at 605.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 23
A. Respondent McKesson Drug Company, Rocky
Hill, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing or dealing with Respondent Teamsters
as the bargaining representative of its employees em-
ployed at its Rocky Hill, Connecticut, facility unless and
until Respondent Teamsters has been certified by the
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of such
employees.
(b) Assisting Respondent Teamsters in any other
manner to become the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees.
(c) Giving effect to, performing, or in any way enforc-
ing the collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent
Teamsters entered into around November 1978 or to any
modification, extension, renewal, or supplement thereto;
provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Re-
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
475
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent McKesson to vary or abandon any wage, hour,
seniority, or other substantive feature of its relations with
its employees which have been established in the per-
formance of any such agreement or to prejudice the as-
sertion by such employees of any rights they may have
thereunder.
(d) Encouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of, Respondent Teamsters by discriminating against its
employees with respect to their hire, tenure, and terms
and conditions of employment.
(e) Threatening employees with discharge for engag-
ing in union activities and/or utilizing the Board's proc-
esses and promulgating an overly broad and unlawful no-
solicitation rule.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Re-
spondent Teamsters as the representative of its employ-
ees employed at its Rocky Hill, Connecticut, facility for
the purposes of collective bargaining unless and until
said labor organization shall have been duly certified by
the Board as the exclusive representative of such em-
ployees.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Teamsters
reimburse each of its present and former employees for
any and all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys, if any,
paid by or withheld from them pursuant to the terms of
the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement, but such
reimbursement shall not extend to any such employees
who may have voluntarily joined and been members of
Respondent Teamsters prior to October 1, 1979.
(c) Post at its Rocky Hill, Connecticut, facility copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."24 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Officer-in-
Charge for Subregion 39, shall, after being duly signed
by Respondent McKesson's representative, be posted by
Respondent McKesson immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
24 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
(d) Notify said Officer-in-Charge, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Teamsters Local 443, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Respondent McKesson's Rocky Hill, Connecticut, em-
ployees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless
and until it shall have been certified by the Board as the
exclusive representative of said employees.
(b) Giving any force or effect to the collective-bar-
gaining agreement executed with Respondent McKesson
around November 1978 or to any modification, exten-
sion, renewal, or supplement thereto.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent McKesson
reimburse each of Respondent McKesson's present and
former employees at the Rocky Hill, Connecticut, facili-
ty for any and all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys,
if any, paid by or withheld from them pursuant to the
terms of the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement,
but such reimbursement shall not extend to any such em-
ployees who may have voluntarily joined and been mem-
bers of Respondent Teamsters prior to October 1, 1979.
(b) Post at its offices or meeting halls copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix B."25 Copies of said
notice, provided by the Officer-in-Charge for Sub-
Region 39, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Teamsters representative, be posted by Respondent
Teamsters 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 to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify said Officer-in-Charge, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the
consolidated complaint found to be without merit are
hereby dismissed.
25 See fn. 24. supra.
476