Northeast Truck Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 26, 1989

296 N.L.R.B. 753 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

NORTHEAST TRUCK CENTER C & J Transpo , Inc. d/b/a Northeast Truck Center and Teamsters Local Union No . 229, a/w Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL- CIO. Case 4-CA-16473 September 26, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On April 24, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Lowell Goerlich issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in response to the Respondent 's exceptions and in support of the cross-exceptions. The Charg- ing Party filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge' s rulings, findings, I and conclusions as modified ,2 and to adopt the recom- mended Order as modified. The General Counsel has excepted to the judge's failure to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to refuse to negotiate with the Union. As the judge found, the Respondent's general manager , De Angelo, contacted employees Drum, Woodyatt, and De Lucy in mid-February 1987 regarding a pay raise . According to Drum's uncontroverted testimony, De Angelo at that time told the employees that "[h]e didn't want to contin- ue with the pension plan and that he wouldn't ne- gotiate with the Teamsters 229." We find that De Angelo 's statement , made after the Union had re- quested negotiations and just prior to the contract's expiration , reasonably tended to interfere with, re- strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and thus constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1). See Francis J. Fisher, Inc., 289 ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find- ings . The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (3d Car. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. We note that in sec 111 ,B, par . 6 of his decision , the judge inadvertent- ly stated that the Respondent failed to make pension fund payments through February 1, 1987, rather than February 28, 1987 2 In view of our adoption of the judge 's conclusion that the Respond- ent violated Sec 8 (a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally granting a wage increase to employees, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel's contention that the wage increase also constituted discriminatory conduct in violation of Sec 8 (a)(3). 753 NLRB 815 fn. 1 (1988). We shall modify the judge's recommended Order accordingly. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Insert the following as new Conclusion of Law 11 and renumber the subsequent conclusion of law accordingly: "11. By telling employees that it would not ne- gotiate with the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)." ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, C & J Transpo, Inc. d/b/a Northeast Truck Center, Scranton, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(i) and re- letter the following paragraph. "(i) Telling employees that it would not negoti- ate with the Union." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form , join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with Teamsters Local Union No. 229, a/w. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO as the representative of our employ- ees in the unit described as follows: All service and maintenance employees work- ing foremen including parts department em- ployees and all stock men of Northeast Truck 296 NLRB No. 93 754 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Center but excluding office clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT repudiate the collective-bargain- ing process by withdrawing recognition from the above-named Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of our unit employees, and WE WILL NOT refuse to follow the collective-bar- gaining agreement applicable to our unit employ- ees. WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal direct- ly with our unit employees and enter into and give effect to a labor agreement with them. WE WILL NOT unilaterally give wage increases to our employees and change their terms and condi- tions of employment. WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to make pension fund contributions to the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund for employees in the ap- propriate unit in accordance with the terms of the collective -bargaining agreement. WE WILL NOT tell employees that a wage in- crease would not be guaranteed if they decided to keep the Union. WE WILL NOT require employees to agree to no longer being represented by the Union in order to receive a cost-of-living wage increase. WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will not negotiate with the Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL rescind the agreement dated March 1, 1987, entered into with employees Alan De Lucy, Richard Woodyatt, and Allen Drum. WE WILL make payment to the Central Pennsyl- vania Teamsters Pension Fund for the contribu- tions we owe for the period September 13, 1986, to March 31, 1988, and for any period thereafter that we are required under the Act to make such con- tributions. WE WILL, on request, bargain with the above- named Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment. WE WILL comply with the terms of our collec- tive-bargaining agreement with the Union in effect from March 1, 1986, to February 28, 1987, retroac- tively and prospectively until such time as we have reached a collective-bargaining agreement or have bargained to impasse or are otherwise legally ex- cused from conforming with its terms and condi- tions. C & J TRANSPO, INC. D/B/A NORTH- EAST TRUCK CENTER Richard Wainstein, Esq., for the General Counsel. Gregory Pascale, Esq., of Scranton, Pennsylvania , for the Respondent. Robert Mariani, Esq., of Scranton , Pennsylvania , for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge. The charge in this case filed by Teamsters Local Union No. 229, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL- CIO' (the Union) on March 13, 1987, was served on C & J Transpo, Inc. d/b/a Northeast Truck Center (the Respondent) on March 16 , 1987. A complaint and notice of hearing was issued on June 30 , 1987. In the complaint it was alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1), (5), and (3) and Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. The case came on for hearing March 30, 1988, at which time an informal settlement agreement was execut- ed between the parties. Thereafter on October 31, 1988, the General Counsel filed a "Motion to Set Aside Informal Settlement." On December 9, 1988, the motion was granted , the settle- ment agreement was vacated , and the case was set for trial for February 7, 1989. Thereafter , the case came on for hearing in Olyphant, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 1989. All parties were af- forded a full opportunity to be heard; to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses ; to argue orally on the record; to submit proposed findings of fact and conclu- sions; and to file briefs. All briefs have been carefully considered. On the entire record in this case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor , I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND REASONS THEREFOR I. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is, and has been at all times material, a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the operation of selling truck parts and servicing trucks from its facility located at 1225 N. Keyser Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylva- nia (the facility). During the past year, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above, On November 1, 1987, the Teamsters International Union was read- mitted to the AFL-CIO The Charging Party's name reflects the change NORTHEAST TRUCK CENTER purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points directly outside the Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is, and has been at all times material, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts The uncontradicted facts in this case disclose that the Union had represented service and maintenance employ- ees, working foreman including parts department em- ployees and all stockmen of the Northeast Truck Center for over 30 years and that the most recent labor agree- ments between the Respondent and the Union , executed March 1 , 1986, expired on February 28, 1987 . On Octo- ber 30, 1986, Paul Weber , secretary-treasurer of the Union, informed the Respondent by letter that the Union was "desirous of entering negotiations for a new Collec- tive Bargaining Agreement applicable to Members of the Union employed by your Company ." The Respondent responded to this request by letter dated November 18, 1986, from Chuck De Angelo, general manager of the Respondent , in which it was stated , "This is to inform you that Northeast Truck Center will not be entering into negotiations for collective bargaining due to recent economic conditions." On February 23, 1987, Weber phoned De Angelo. In the phone conversation, Weber informed De Angelo that "the employees wanted a dollar increase and no other changes in the contract ." De Angelo replied that he had already offered the employees an increase but "did not want to sign a contract or have anything to do with the local union ." Weber suggested that a meeting be held "to discuss all of these problems ." A meeting was arranged for February 26, 1987. Around mid-February 1987, De Angelo had contacted employees Allen Drum , Richard Woodyatt , and Alan De Lucy and said that he would give them "a 60 cent an hour raise effective March 1 , 1987 and that he didn't want to continue with the pension plan." De Angelo added that the employees "should take the 60 cent an hour raise because it was guaranteed us" and that if the employees "decided to keep 229 that . . . no pay raise would be guaranteed." On February 26, 1987, De Angelo, Weber, and Nate Evans, "the steward on the job ," met as arranged. Weber described what occurred: I opened the meeting and asked the steward if it was true that Mr. De Angelo offered them an in- crease and the steward 's answer was in front of Mr. De Angelo yes it is true . I then asked Mr. De Angelo what kind of raise he offered and his reply to me was five percent increase and I then asked him if he wouldn 't sign a contract for one year and 755 he said no I don 't want to sign no contract . I don't want to have anything to do with the union. I then asked him about the pension situation. I said well what are you going to do about the pay- ments to the pension and he says to me that he didn 't want to have anything to do with the local union. I then asked him what was the major problem there and he said he couldn 't afford a pension, the pension situation . I said to him why don't you sign an agreement for one year with the increase pay all of the pension that you owe with no pension in the contract and he said no. I won't do that either he said I don 't want to have a signed contract with the local union and I don 't want to have anything to do with the local union and at that the meeting broke up which was approximately 25 to 30 to 35 minutes is about all it lasted. On March 2 , 1987, De Angelo informed Drum that he had a "paper" drawn up that he wanted to read to him. The "paper," typed on the Respondent 's letterhead, was as follows: We the undersigned agree to a cost of living in- crease effective March 1, 1987 and every year thereafter. We also agree to maintain all other bene- fits now in effective [sic], excluding the Teamsters Pension Plan. This agreement will be in effect as long as North- east Truck Center is owned and operated by Mr. Frank Colombo. (Signature) Frank Colombo We the undersigned agree to the above said pro- posal and agree to no longer being represented by the Local 229 Teamsters union. (Signature) Alan De Lucy (Signature) Richard Woodyatt (Signature) Allen Drum The signature spaces were blank when De Angelo showed the "paper" to Drum . After reading the "paper" to Drum, De Angelo said he would have it signed and returned . De Angelo returned to Drum with the "paper" signed by Colombo, De Lucy, and Woodyatt. Drum signed the "paper ." Drum testified that he "didn't really want to" sign the "paper." In the next paycheck employees received the 60-cent- an-hour pay raise effective March 1, 1987.2 A "couple of weeks" later De Angelo returned to Drum and requested that he return the "paper " saying that "it didn't sound like they were worded right and wanted them back." 2 There were rive employees in the appropriate unit. 756 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There wefe no further contacts between the Respond- ent and the Union between February 26, 1987, and March 30, 1988, the date of the above-mentioned settle- ment agreement. After the settlement agreement was executed , by letter dated April 19, 1988 , Weber sent the Respondent some proposed changes in the contract and a request that the parties meet to discuss the proposed changes.' By letter of May 25, 1988 , the Respondent 's attorney replied that the Respondent "expect[s] to have a reply to your pro- posal within the next thirty (30) days." The Union re- ceived no answer within the next 30 days. Weber phoned the Respondent twice in July and requested to speak to Frank Colombo, "owner of the company," but was un- successful in reaching him or in receiving a return phone call. By letter dated September 13, 1988 , Weber received another letter from the Respondent 's attorney advising him that he would meet with his client "within the next week to ten (10) days" and that he expected to reply within the next 30 days. The two letters from the Re- spondent's attorney were the only communication either oral or written that the Union received from the Re- spondent . Thereafter, the motion to set aside informal settlement agreement was filed on October 31, 1988, as aforementioned. The parties stipulated that the Respondent had paid $2586.40 to the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund on behalf of its employees as part of the settlement agreement . No additional pension payments have been made nor has the Respondent otherwise complied with the settlement agreement. The parties further stipulated that the Respondent ac- knowledges an obligation to make pension contributions to the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund and that it will do so at such time as the pension fund fur- nishes it with a correct statement of the amounts owed, as required by an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 88-0791.4 Christopher Colombo, vice president and general man- ager of the Respondent , testified as to why the Respond- ent did not meet with the Union: At the time business conditions and other obliga- tions kept me from meeting , but as time went on I from comments heard from the employees my feel- ing was that they did not wish to be represented by the Teamsters. The majority of the employees-my personal feeling is that they did not wish to be rep- resented by the local. So at that time I just decided well I don 't have a reason to meet with them. Colombo further testified that the pension payments had not been made because the Respondent had not been billed for them. a In the settlement agreement the Respondent had agreed to bargain in good faith with the Union on request 4 The order was filed on May 31, 1988, in Central Pennsylvania Team- sters Pension Fund v. Northeast Truck Center. B. Conclusion and Reasons Therefor Unless the Respondent has presented sufficient de- fenses, it is clear from the uncontradicted evidence in this case that the Respondent is guilty of unfair labor practices. The Respondent asserts that it should be excused for its failure to bargain with the Union for a new collective- bargaining agreement because of its "good faith doubt that the union continues to represent a majority of the employees." The Respondent plants this assertion on Co- lombo's testimony that , based on the comments heard from his employees , his feeling was that they did not wish to be represented by the Union. In Hospital Employees District 1199P v. NLRB, 130 LRRM 2201 , 2205-2206 ( 1989), the law respecting this type of defense has been well summarized: A union chosen by an appropriate bargaining unit is presumed to have the continued support of the majority of its members . See Fall River Dyeing, 107 S.Ct at 2233; NLRB v. Burns International Security Service, Inc., 406 U.S. 272, 279 n. 3 (1972). The pur- pose behind this presumption is to promote stability in the collective -bargaining relationship and hence industrial peace . See Fall River Dyeing , 107 S.Ct. at 2233. "Where an employer remains the same, a Board certification carries with it an almost conclu- sive presumption that the majority representative status of the union continues for a reasonable time, usually a year . After this period , there is a rebutta- ble presumption on majority representation ." Burns, 406 U.S. at 279 n . 3 (citations omitted ). After the initial year, the question whether the presumption of continued majority support has been rebutted is recast in terms of whether the employer "has rea- sonable, good faith grounds for believing that the union has lost its majority status" after a collective bargaining agreement has expired . International As- sociation of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 3 v. NLRB, 843 F.2d 770, 772 (3d Cir.). cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 222 (1988). In order to show good faith doubt , the employer must produce evidence probative of a change in employee sentiment . This is a difficult burden to meet . For example , the fact that an employee has crossed a picket line is not evidence that the em- ployee has abandoned this union . NLRB v. Frick Co., 423 F.2d 1327, 1333-34 (3d Cir. 1970). Similar- ly, we have declined to accept testimony proffered by an employer 's representative based on his subjec- tive conclusions about change in sentiment . Toltec Metals, Inc. v. NLRB, 490 F.2d 1122, 1125 (3d Cir. 1974). Even a petition circulated by employees may not lend credence to an employer 's good faith doubt. Garrett R. R. Car & Equipment, Inc. v. NLRB, 683 F.2d 731, 737 (3d Cir. 1982). In sum, for an employer "[t]o meet this burden `requires more than an employer's mere mention of [its good faith doubt] and more than proof of the employer's subjective frame of mind .' What is required is a 'ra- tional basis in fact."' Toltec, 490 F.2d at 1125 NORTHEAST TRUCK CENTER (bracketed statement in original ) (quoting NLRB v. Risk Equipment Co., 407 F.2d 1098, 1101 (4th Cir. 1969); see also Frick, 423 F.2d at 1331. It is clear that the Respondent's alleged good-faith doubt does not satisfy the criteria set out above and that its defense is not well taken. The Respondent further asserts that its failure to make payments to the pension fund is a moot issue here be- cause it has agreed to pay once its employees are proper- ly credited. The Respondent's failure to make payments to the Pension Fund from September 1986 through February 1, 1987, the last 6 months of the contract, constituted an unilateral midterm modification of the contract in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (d) of the Act, Michigan Drywall Corp., 232 NLRB 120 (1977), enfd. 616 F.2d 966 (6th Cir. 1980), and the Respondent 's failure to make payments to the pension fund thereafter constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Auto Fast Freight, 272 NLRB 561, 563 (1984), enfd. 793 F.2d 1126 (9th Cir. 1986); Excelsior Pet Products, 276 NLRB 759, 762-763 (1985). These violations call for a Board remedy. According- ly, I do not find that the Respondent 's failure to make payments moot, even though the Respondent has agreed to make payments and the district court has ordered the Respondent to make payments . The Respondent's de- fense is not well taken . Cf. Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 108 S.Ct. 830 ( 1988). Because the Respondent neither by evidence intro- duced nor by argument in its brief has offered any valid defenses to the General Counsel's complaint , I find that the Respondent has committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the General Counsel's complaint. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be exercised here. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. 3. The following employees of the Respondent consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All service and maintenance employees , working foremen including parts department employees and all stock men of Northeast Truck Center but ex- cluding office clerical employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.5 4. At all times material , the Union has been the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By failing and refusing to continue to bargain col- lectively with the Union and by withdrawing recognition 5 The unit is not disputed 757 from the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 6. By bypassing the Union and dealing directly with its employees and by consummating the March 1, 1987 agreement with three of its employees, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. See Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678 (1944). 7. By bypassing the Union without bargaining collec- tively, by unilaterally implementing the March 1, 1987 agreement , by unilaterally giving wage increases to its employees , and by unilaterally changing terms and con- ditions of employment of its employees, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 8. By failing and refusing to make pension fund contri- butions for employees in the appropriate unit in accord- ance with its legal obligations , the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 9. By telling employees that a wage increase would not be guaranteed if they decided to keep the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). 10. By requiring employees to agree to "no longer being represented by the Local 229 Teamsters union" in order to receive a cost-of- living increase effective March 1, 1987, and every year thereafter, the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having fur- ther found that the Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with the Union, has withdrawn rec- ognition from the Union , and has unlawfully made uni- lateral changes in employees ' terms and conditions of employment , I recommend that the Respondent recog- nize the Union as the representative of its employees and bargain with the Union in good faith and that it apply the terms and conditions of the expired agreement retro- actively and prospectively until such time as the Re- spondent and the Union have reached a collective-bar- gaining agreement or a bona fide impasse in bargaining has been reached or the Respondent is lawfully relieved of its duty to further bargain with the Union or the Union fails to request bargaining within 5 days of this decision and recommended Order or the Union subse- quently fails to bargain in good faith with the Respond- ent. Benefits that have been given to the Respondent's employees by the Respondent shall continue in the inter- im. In addition I recommend that the Respondent make whole its employees by making the contractually estab- lished payments to them and the various trust funds (Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund ) estab- lished by the collective -bargaining agreement , and by re- imbursing employees for any expenses ensuing from the Respondent 's unlawful failure to make such required payments and interest or other sums as provided in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 1 (1980), enfd. 758 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), and Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- edit ORDER The Respondent, C & J Transpo, Inc. d/b/a Northeast Truck Center, Scranton, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the ap- propriate unit with respect to wages, hours, working conditions , or other terms and conditions of employment of employees, and refusing to apply the terms of the col- lective-bargaining agreement , which was applicable to those employees until it may be legally excused. (b) Repudiating the collective-bargaining process by withdrawing recognition from the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees or refusing to follow the collective -bargaining agreement, which was applicable to its employees as required by the remedy here. (c) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with its unit employees and entering into a labor agreement with them. (d) Unilaterally giving wage increases to its employees and changing their terms and conditions of employment. (e) Giving effect to the labor agreement dated March 1, 1987, between the Respondent and Alan De Lucy, Richard Woodyatt, and Allen Drum. (f) Failing and refusing to make pension fund contribu- tions to the Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund for employees in the appropriate unit in accord- ance with terms of the labor agreement and in accord- ance with the recommendations set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (g) Telling employees that a wage increase would not be guaranteed if they decided to keep the Union. (h) Requiring employees to agree to no longer being represented by the Union in order to receive a cost-of- living wage increase. (i) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 6 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 pur- poses 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request , bargain collectively with Teamsters Local Union No. 229, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours, and other terms and condi- tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Forthwith make whole its unit employees by trans- mitting the contributions owed to the Central Pennsylva- nia Teamsters Pension Fund in conformity with the remedy here. (c) Comply with the terms and conditions of the col- lective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union in effect from March 1, 1986, to February 28, 1987 , retroactively and prospectively until such time as the Respondent has reached a collective -bargaining agreement with the Union or until it has reached a bona fide impasse in bargaining with the Union or otherwise excused from conforming with the terms and conditions of such agreement as set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (d) Comply fully with the remedy set forth here. (e) Preserve and, on request , make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay- roll records , social security payments records, timecards, personnel records and reports , and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (f) Post at its facility in Scranton , Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of the notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4 after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply.8 7 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 Nation- al 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 " 6 The General Counsel's motion to strike portions of Respondent's posthearing brief and attached Exh B is denied.