Steak and Brew

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 450 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Peter and John's Restaurant Corporation t/a Steak tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
and Brew and Local Union 1518 , International housemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse- agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
men and Helpers of America and Bartenders , Culi- forth in the said recommended Order.
nary Workers and Motel Employees Union-Local
158, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Barten-
ders International Union, AFL-CIO
Shaw Restaurant t/a Steak and Brew and Local Union
1518, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Peter and John's Restaurant Corporation and Shaw
Restaurant t/a Steak and Brew and Bartenders, Cu-
linary Workers and Motel Employees Union-Local
158, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Barten-
ders International Union, AFL-CIO
Local 518, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and Bartenders , Culinary Workers and Motel Em-
ployees Union-Local 158, Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO. Cases 22-CA-5511, 22-CA-5523, 22-
CA-5608, and 22-CB-2552
September 24, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY , AND PENELLO
On April 18, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Sid-
ney Sherman issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Teamsters' filed a brief in
lieu of exceptions and the General Counsel filed a
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the briefs and has decided
to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent Companies, Peter and
John's Restaurant Corporation and Shaw Restaurant,
both t/a Steak and Brew, Paramus and Fort Lee, New
Jersey, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns;
and Respondent Union Local Union 1518, Interna-
1 As indicated in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Locals 518 and
1518 of the Teamsters merged and the latter became the surviving organiza-
tion.
DECISION
SIDNEY SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: The instant
charges were served between July 2 and November 9, 1972,1
an amended, consolidated complaint issued on December 4,
and hearing thereon was held on December 19 and 20. The
issues litigated related to alleged violations of Section
8(a)(l), (2), and (3) of the Act. After the hearing, briefs were
filed by counsel for Locals 1518 and 518 and by the General
Counsel.
Upon the entire record,2 the following findings and rec-
ommendations are made:
1. JURISDICTION
Peter and John's Restaurant Corporation is a corporation
under the laws of the State of New Jersey and operates a
restaurant in Paramus, New Jersey. Shaw Restaurant is a
corporation under the laws of New Jersey and operates a
restaurant at Fort Lee, New Jersey. Each firm has annual
revenues in excess of $50,000 and annually receives more
than $50,000 worth of supplies directly from out-of-state
points.
Both firms have common ownership and common offi-
cers and directors, and their labor relations policies are
under centralized control. It is found that both constitute a
single , integrated enterprise and may be treated as a single
employer for all purposes. They will be referred to hereinaf-
ter collectively as the Company.
The Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE UNIONS INVOLVED
Bartenders, Culinary Workers and Motel Employees
Union-Local 158, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called Bartenders, is a labor organization under the Act.
Local Union 1518, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
and Local 518, hereinafter collectively called Teamsters, are
labor organizations under the Act.3
All dates herein are in 1973 , unless otherwise indicated.
2 For corrections of the transcript and certain evidentiary rulings, see the
order of March 22, 1974.
7 The foregoing findings are subject to the qualification that Local 518
merged with Local 1518 on December 1, and the surviving organization is
Local 1518 . See Teamsters brief at p 1.
213 NLRB No. 70
STEAK AND BREW
A. Sequence of Events
The Company operates restaurants at Fort Lee and Para-
mus, New Jersey, about 5 miles apart. In the spring of 1973,
Bartenders launched a campaign to organize the Paramus
employees, and on May 28, the Company signed a contract
with Bartenders covering those employees for the period
June 1, 1973 to May 31, 1976. That contract contained
union-shop and dues checkoff clauses.
Thereafter, on June 7, Teamsters filed with the Board a
petition for an election among the employees at Fort Lee
(Case 22-RC-5768). Bartenders intervened and, on June 20,
the Company and both unions entered into an agreement
for a consent election to be conducted by the Board at Fort
Lee, which was scheduled to be held on July 10. As that date
approached, there were a number of significant devel-
opments. On July 2, Teamsters filed the charge in Case
22-CA-5511 alleging , inter alia, unlawful assistance by the
Company to Bartenders at Paramus, and, on July 6, Team-
sters filed the charge in Case 22-CA-5523 alleging unlawful
assistance to Bartenders at Fort Lee. The next day Team-
sters and Respondent entered into an agreement for a non-
Board or "private" election to be held on July 10 at both
restaurants with both unions on the ballot. On July 9, the
Regional Director ordered the Board election at Fort Lee
postponed indefinitely, pending investigation of Teamsters
charges.' The next day, the private election was conducted
by an individual selected and compensated by Respondent
and Teamsters, and he submitted a talley of ballots showing
that of 79 eligible voters, 45 voted for Teamsters, 3 for
Bartenders, I for no union, and 3 were challenged. Thereaf-
ter, Teamsters and the Company entered into contract ne-
gotiations, but, although certain matters were agreed upon,
the Company refused to reduce them to writing. In October,
Teamsters resumed the picketing of both restaurants to
compel execution of the contract, and, in ensuing state court
litigation, the picketing was enjoined but the Company was
directed to reduce its oral agreement with Teamsters to
writing and to "pay all wages and benefits provided for" in
that agreement. Pursuant to that order, the parties' agree-
ment has been embodied in a written document, but at the
time of the instant hearing it had not yet been signed.
On September 19, Bartenders filed the charge in Case
22-CA-5608 alleging domination and assistance of Team-
sters by the Company at Fort Lee and Paramus, and, on
November 8, Bartenders filed a related charge against
Teamsters, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
8(b)(2).5 Complaints issued on all the above charges and
they were consolidated for hearing.
° On the same day that election was rendered moot by the withdrawal by
Teamsters of its petition in Case 22-RC-5768, and the filing by that Union
of a new petition for the employees at both locations
5 A petition filed by Bartenders on July I I for an election at Fort Lee had
been dismissed on the ground that it was not supported by a valid showing
of interest , because of the unlawful assistance rendered Bartenders by the
Company in organizing the employees
6 As to the extent to which dues were actually checked off , see discussion
below, in the text.
B. Discussion
1. Assistance to Bartenders
451
On the basis of the allegations of the consolidated com-
plaint, which were not contested by Bartenders or the Com-
pany, the following findings are made:
On or about May 30, June 1, and June 2, at Paramus,
agents of the Company solicited employees to sign authori-
zation and checkoff cards for Bartenders and demanded the
execution of such cards as a condition of retaining employ-
ment . On or about May 28, the Company and Bartenders
executed a contract recognizing Bartenders as the exclusive
representative of the Paramus employees, notwithstanding
that Bartenders did not represent an uncoerced majority of
the Paramus employees. That contract, which contained a
union-shop and checkoff clause, was honored by the Com-
pany at least until July 10.
On or about June 12, 13, and 14, at Fort Lee, agents of
the Company solicited, and required, employees to sign
authorization and checkoff cards in favor of Bartenders.
By the foregoing conduct at Fort Lee, the Company vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and by the above-
described conduct at Paramus, including the execution of a
union-security contract, it violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3) of the Act.
2. Assistance to Teamsters
The Company and Teamsters admit the following con-
duct, which is alleged in the complaint:
On or about July 10, the Company recognized Teamsters
as the exclusive representative of its employees at Paramus
and Fort Lee and since August 20 has been negotiating with
Teamsters about the terms of a contract covering those
employees. On or about October 20 and 21, Teamsters
called a strike at Paramus and Fort Lee to force the Compa-
ny to reduce to writing, and execute, a contract. Thereafter,
the Company and Teamsters did reduce to writing those
terms which had theretofore been agreed to, including
union-security and checkoff clauses .6
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that,
by recognizing, and negotiating with, Teamsters and reduc-
ing to writing certain contract terms, including a union-
security clause , the Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3) of the Act, and that Teamsters violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by participating in such negotiations
and Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by picketing to compel the
execution of a contract containing, inter alia, an illegal
union-shop clause.
While acknowledging the truth of the matters of fact
alleged in the complaint, Teamsters contends that they do
not suffice to establish a violation by it or the Company.
Teamsters argues that the Company's recognition of Team-
sters was proper, since it was based on appropriate proof of
its majority status in the form of the results of a secret ballot
election . However, the General Counsel contends , inter alia,
that certain irregularities in the private election held on July
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10 preclude reliance thereon as proof of Teamsters majority
status. With regard to that issue, the record shows that in
mid-June Teamsters called a strike at both restaurants and
picketing continued until July 7, when, as related above,
Teamsters entered into an agreement with the Company for
a private election to be held at both restaurants on the same
day as the scheduled Board election .7 Admittedly, no prior
notice of this arrangement was given to Bartenders nor was
it afforded an opportunity to participate therein. It was
provided that the election would be conducted in a unit
comprising both restaurants by one Clement Cull, "or by
another independent person agreeable to the parties," that
the cost of the election would be shared by Teamsters and
the Company, that Bartenders name would appear on the
ballot as well as Teamsters, and that the Company would
enter into negotiations with Teamsters upon the happening
of all the following events:
a. A majority vote for Teamsters in the private elec-
tion or any "subsequent election that might be held."
b. A ruling (presumably by the Board) that Barten-
ders contract (at Paramus) was invalid.
c. A finding by the Board that the two-restaurant
unit in which the private election was held was appro-
priate.'
At the same time the Company pledged that it would take
no position before the Board on the appropriateness of the
two-restaurant unit or on the validity of Bartenders contract
at Paramus, and Teamsters foreswore any further picketing
at Paramus or Fort Lee, if the two-restaurant unit was "not
sustained" and if Bartenders contract was "held to be inval-
id (sic)."
The agreement contained, also, a provision for union vis-
itation rights and an elaborate grievance procedure, culmi-
nating in arbitration, to become operative upon the
designation of Teamsters in the private election. Signifi-
cantly, no comparable commitments were made by the
Company to Bartenders. Thus, there was no pledge that, if
Bartenders won the private election, the Company would
grant it recognition, visitation rights, or participation in any
sort of grievance procedure. Moreover, the foregoing agree-
ment contained an unconditional undertaking by the Com-
pany to reinstate with full backpay all the picketing
employees at both restaurants, to hold in escrow all dues
checked off under Bartenders contract pending the outcome
of the instant proceeding, and not to lock out or discrimi-
nate against any employee for activity on behalf of any
union involved in the private election. Admittedly, no no-
tices concerning the election were posted in advance there-
of, and, insofar as appears from the record, the only
advance notice given to Bartenders was a telephone call to
its representative from one of the employees a few hours
before the election. The observer for Bartenders at the elec-
tion was appointed by the Company and the employees
were told at the polls that the election was being conducted
by an individual whose compensation came from Teamsters
r As already related , the Board election was postponed on July 9 because
of the charge filed on July 6 by Teamsters , and it was never held. '
B The Company recognized Teamsters after July 10, even though only the
first of these three conditions had been met, the other two apparently having
been waived.
and the Company, the implication being that Bartenders did
not have sufficient interest in the matter to contribute its
share.
It is found that by the foregoing preferential treatment
given Teamsters , not only in the conduct of the election, but
also with regard to conditional and unconditional commit-
ments made as to matters affecting the employees ' terms of
employment , the Company rendered unlawful assistance to
Teamsters and interfered with freedom of choice in the
election , thereby invalidating the results thereof.'
The General Counsel contends further that the Company
violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) by deducting dues from
the employees' pay in favor of Teamsters without the indi-
vidual , written authorizations required by Section 302 of the
Act.
The Company 's contract with Teamsters provides for
checkoff of initiation fees and dues and remittance thereof
to Teamsters and requires that it supply the Company with
checkoff authorizations signed by its members . The state
court's order to the Company to reduce to writing, and
implement , its oral agreement with the Teamsters contained
the following provision with respect to dues checkoff:
... all dues payable to any union under such agree-
ment or any other agreement shall be paid to [the
Company's] attorneys in escrow pending the further
order of the court.
The General Counsel offered no evidence that there had in
fact been any dues checkoff and all that appears in the
record on the point was a statement by the Company's
counsel reflecting his understanding that a check for the
checked-off dues had been mailed to him by his client.10 In
any event, there was no allegation in the complaint nor any
evidence that Teamsters failed to furnish the individual au-
thorizations required by the parties' contract. Accordingly,
no violation will be found here.
The General Counsel contends that the Company further
9In The Brescome Distributors Corporation, 179 NLRB 787 (1969), enfd.
452 F.2d 1312 (C.A.D.C., 19), cited by Teamsters, a divided Board rejected
as a defense to an employer's refusal to bargain the contention that he was
confronted with a rival claim by a union, which the Board found to have been
assisted by him. Here, too, it has been found that Bartenders was assisted by
the Company and Teamsters contends that, under the Brescome case, the
Company was required to recognize Teamsters despite the rival claim of
Bartenders . However , at this point we are not dealing , as the Board was in
Brescome, with any question of the applicability of the Midwest Piping rule
(Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060 (1945) ), which presup-
poses that one of the two competing unions has achieved an uncoerced
majority, but rather with the threshold issue whether Teamsters ever did
achieve such a majority . With regard to that issue, no authority has been
found that requires that, in evaluating the conditions under which the instant
election was held, the Board disregard the assistance rendered by the Compa-
ny to Teamsters because of its previous assistance to Bartenders. There is no
warrant for assuming that any help given one union can be exactly neutral-
ized by that given another , particularly where , as here, the assistance is of
a different nature and is given to the one union, but not to the other, on the
eve of an election.
(It having been found that Teamsters did not obtain a valid majority, there
is no occasion to reach the question discussed at length in the General
Counsel's brief of the applicability here of the Midwest Piping rule or of the
extent to which Brescome, supra, trenches on that rule.)
10 After the hearing there was received a letter dated March I ^, 1974, from
the Company's counsel, advising that in the state court action the Company
had been ordered on January 23, 1974, to refund all checked-off dues and
that this had been done.
STEAK AND BREW
violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by negotiat-
ing with Teamsters and reducing the resulting agreement to
writing. That such negotiations and the understandings
reached therein violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act necessarily follows from the findings heretofore made
that Teamsters did not represent an uncoerced majority of
the employees." Whether the reduction of such under-
standings to writing was also unlawful raises a novel ques-
tion, since the Company acted under compulsion of a state
court order. However, there is no need to resolve that ques-
tion, as the remedy that will be recommended herein for the
other acts of assistance will be broad enough to interdict all
conduct incidental to the negotiation and execution of any
contract between the Company and Teamsters. Thus, no
useful purpose would be served by making such particu-
larized findings as are here proposed by the General Coun-
sel with respect to Section 8(a)(2).
The General Counsel finally urges that Teamsters should
be found to have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
accepting the Company's assistance and imposing itself on
the employees as their representative, and to have violated
Section 8(b)(2) by picketing to force the Company to exe-
cute an agreement containing an illegal union-security
clause. It is so found.12
Conclusions
1. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act by soliciting employees to sign authorization and check-
off cards for Bartenders , by demanding the execution of
such cards as a condition of retaining employment, by re-
cognizing Bartenders as the exclusive representative of its
employees notwithstanding that it had not been designated
as such representative by an uncoerced majority of such
employees , and by executing a contract with Bartenders.
2. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the Act by including a union-security clause in its foregoing
contract with Bartenders.
3. The Company violated , Section 8 (a)(2) and (I) of the
Act by the preferential treatment given Teamsters in the
conduct of a private election to determine the representative
of its employees , by the various commitments made to
Teamsters on the eve of that election regarding matters
affecting the terms and conditions of employment of its
employees , and by recognizing , and negotiating with, Team-
sters as the exclusive representative of its employees, not-
withstanding that it had not been so designated by an
11 Majestic Lamp Mfg Corp, 143 NLRB 180 (1963). An additional basis
for a finding of a violation of Sec 8(a)(3) is afforded by the fact that one of
the clauses agreed to by the Company requires that, as a condition of employ-
ment, all employees in the contract unit join Teamsters 30 days after their
date of hire or 30 days after the effective date of the agreement . This deviates
from the requirements of the proviso to Sec . 8(a)(3), in that it omits the phrase
"whichever is later." The effect of this omission is to eliminate or abridge the
statutory grace period for any employees hired before the effective date of
the contract , since, under the contract language , their grace period would end
30 days after their hiring date , regardless of whether the contract had already
453
uncoerced majority of such employees in an appropriate
unit.
4. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the Act by adopting a union-security clause requiring mem-
bership in Teamsters.
5. Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
imposing itself, with the assistance of the Company, upon
the employees as their exclusive representative, thereby in-
terfering with their exercise of the right to select such repre-
sentative.
6. Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(2) by picketing to
compel the Company to execute a contract containing a
union-security clause.
7. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce.
The Remedy
It having been found that the Company violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by its dealings with Teamsters
and that Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2),
it will be recommended that they be required to cease and
desist from such violations and take appropriate, affirma-
tive action. Such action shall include withdrawing and with-
holding recognition from Teamsters as the exclusive
representative of the Company's employees, unless and un-
til Teamsters shall have been certified as such representative
by the Board. Since the Company adopted and implement-
ed the checkoff arrangement with Teamsters only as a result
of extreme pressure by that union and pursuant to a state
court order, and since the issue of reimbursement of initia-
tion fees and dues heretofore checked off appears to be a
moot one, in any event,13 no order for the repayment by the
Company of dues and initiation fees to members of Team-
sters will be recommended.
It having been further found that the Company violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by the various forms
of assistance it rendered to Bartenders, it will be recom-
mended that the Company be ordered to desist therefrom
and to take appropriate affirmative action. Such action shall
include withholding any further recognition from Barten-
ders as the exclusive representative of any of its employees
unless and until it has been duly certified by the Board as
such representative, and the reimbursement of those em-
ployees, who joined Bartenders as a result of the Company's
coercive conduct or because of the obligations imposed by
the union-security clause in Bartenders' contract, for any
initiation fees and dues checked off by the Company plus
interest thereon computed at 6 percent per annum.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:
been in effect for 30 days.
12 Burgreen Contracting Company, Inc, 195 NLRB 1067, 1073 (1972), Jones
& Laughlin Steel Corp, 83 NLRB 916, 917-919, enfd . 184 F 2d 392
(C.A.D C ), cert denied 340 U S. 934 , National Maritime Union of America,
78 NLRB 971, 978 (1948)
13 See In 10, supra
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER 14
A. Respondents, Peter and John's Restaurant Corpora-
tion and Shaw Restaurant, both t/a Steak and Brew Para-
mus and Fort Lee, New Jersey, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support or assistance to Bartenders, Cu-
linary Workers and Motel Employees Union-Local 158,
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO or Local Union 1518, Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization.
(b) Encouraging membership in Bartenders, Culinary
Workers and Motel Employees Union-Local 158, Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, or Local Union 1518, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by
conditioning employment on membership in such organiza-
tion, except to the extent permitted by the provisos in Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) Recognizing and negotiating with, Bartenders, Culi-
nary Workers and Motel Employees Union-Local 158,
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, or Local Union 1518, Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of
their employees at either or both of their restaurants in
Paramus and Fort Lee, New Jersey , unless and until certi-
fied as such representative by the Board.
(d) Enforcing or giving effect to any existing contracts
with Bartenders, Culinary Workers and Motel Employees
Union-Local 158, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and Local
Union 1518, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or to
any extension, renewal or modification thereof or any su-
perseding agreement; provided, however, that nothing here-
in shall be construed as requiring said Respondents to vary
any of the employee benefits provided for in said agree-
ments.
(e) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations executed
by their employees in favor of Bartenders, Culinary Work-
ers and Motel Employees Union-Local 158, Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be limited by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
14 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
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Barten-
ders, Culinary Workers and Motel Employees Union-Lo-
cal 158, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union, AFL-CIO, and Local Union 1518,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of any of their employees in a unit consisting of
employees at Paramus or Fort Lee, New Jersey, or both
locations, unless and until certified as such representative
by the Board.
(b) Reimburse their employees at Paramus, New Jersey,
for all dues and initiation fees checked off in favor of Bar-
tenders, Culinary Workers and Motel Employees Union-
Local 158, Hotel and Restuarant Employees and Barten-
ders International Union, AFL-CIO, in the manner
prescribed in the Remedy section of this Decision.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents for examination and copying, all rec-
ords concerning payroll, personnel, social security pay-
ments , timecards, disbursements and all other records
necessary to ascertain the amount of union fees and dues
owed under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at their restaurants in Paramus and Fort Lee,
New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix A." 15 Immediately upon receipt of said notice, on forms
to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, said
Respondents shall cause the copies to be signed by one of
their authorized representatives, to be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Deliver or mail forthwith to the Regional Director for
Region 22 additional signed copies of Appendix A, as pro-
vided in the preceding paragraph, for posting by Local
Union 1518, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, at its
business offices and meeting halls in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted.
(f) Post and maintain at the same place and under the
same conditions provided in paragraph A 2(d), above, as
soon as forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
notices attached hereto marked "Appendix B." 16
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
said Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent, Local Union 1518, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of
employees of Peter and John's Restaurant Corporation or
15 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
16 See fn 15
STEAK AND;BREW 1 455
Shaw Restaurant for the purpose of dealing with,them con-
cerning,igrievances,. labor, disputes, wages, 'ratesl of pay,
thours,of: employment'or, other,,,conditions• of. employment,
,unless,and'untihLocal Union.:15'1:8,,rlnternationaliBrother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen,,and-Help-
ers of America, shall have been certified as such
representative, by the, Board.
(b) Givingleffectt to, orr requesting or requiring said em-
ployers to give effect to, its collective-bargaining contract
with them. „
(c) Picketing or otherwise seeking to compel such em-
ployers to require as a condition of employment member-
ship in Local Union 1518, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, of
America, or any other labor, organization.
(d) In any other manner restraining or coercing the em-
ployees of said employers in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights are limited by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act. .
2. Take.the following affirmative action, which is neces-
sary toteffectuate the policies of-,the Act:
I(a) Post in its business offices and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked, "Appendix B." 11 Immediately
upon receipt of said'notice, on forms to be provided by the
Regional Director for Region 22, cause the copies to be
signed by one of its authorized representatives, to be main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Lo-
cal Union 1518, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Deliver or mail forthwith to the Regional Director for
Region 22 additional signed copies of Appendix B, as pro-
vided in the preceding paragraph, for posting by the compa-
nies herein at their restaurants in Fort Lee and Paramus,
New Jersey, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Post and maintain at the same places and under the
same conditions as specified in paragraph B 2(a), above, as
soon as forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
1 8notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or, help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their,own;choosing f ,
To -act.together for,collective,bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection and
To refrain from any or all these things.
WE WILL NOT interfere with-these rights.
WE WILL NOT contribute support or assistance to Bar-
tenders, Culinary Workers, and ;Motel. Employees
Union-Local 158, Hotel and Restaurant :Employees
and Bartenders International, Union,-AFL-CIO or Lo-
cal Union 1518, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other union. .
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in either of these
Umons by requiring employees to join them as a condi-
tion of obtaining or retaining employment with us.
WE WILL NOT recognize , negotiate with; ^or enter into
contracts with either of these Unions unless and until
they have been certified by the Board as the representa-
tive of our employees.
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to any contracts
with either of those unions, but we will not' on that
account reduce, the existing level-of employee, benefits.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any checkoff authoriza-
tions in favor of either of those unions , and all mem-
bers of Bartenders, Culinary Workers and Motel
Employees Union-Local 158, Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-
CIO, who joined it because of pressure exerted by us
or because of the union-shop clause in our contract
with that union will be reimbursed by us for dues and
initiation fees checked off, with interest at 6 percent.
Dated
17 See fn. 15, supra
18 See fn . 15, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
By
Dated By
PETER AND JOHN'S RESTAURANT
CORPORATION t/a STEAK AND
BREW
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
SHAW RESTAURANT t/a STEAK
AND BREW
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 16th Floor-Federal Building, 970
Broad Street , Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-
645-3240.
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection and
To refrain from any or all these things.
WE WILL NOT act as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of employees of Peter and John 's Restaurant
or Shaw Restaurant for the purpose of dealing with
those employers concerning terms and conditions of
employment, unless and until we have been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT seek to give effect to, or give effect to
any collective-bargaining agreement with those em-
ployers.
WE WILL NOT by picketing or by any other means seek
to compel such employers to require as a condition of
employment membership in our union or any other
union.
Dated By
LOCAL UNION 1518, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material . Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 16th Floor-Federal Building, 970
Broad Street , Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-
634-3240.