Western Building Maintenance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 379 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

KINNEY NATIONAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Kinney National Maintenance Services , a Division of
Western Building Maintenance Company and
Miscellaneous Warehousemen , Drivers & Helpers,
Local 986 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Service and Maintenance
Employees Union, Local 399, Building Service
Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, Party
to the Contract
Service and Maintenance Employees Union, Local
399, Building Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO ( Kinney National Maintenance
Services, a division of Western Building
Maintenance Company ) and Miscellaneous
Warehousemen , Drivers & Helpers, Local 986,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America
Kinney National Maintenance Services, a Division of
Western Building Maintenance Company and
Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers,
Local 986 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Cases 31-CA-927,
31-CB-330, and 31-CA-997
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On November 14, 1968, Trial Examiner Maurice
Alexander issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceedings, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs, the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a
supporting brief, and Respondent Kinney filed a
brief in opposition to the cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
cross-exceptions and the briefs in support thereof
and opposition thereto, and the entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the following modifications:'
379
Although the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order appropriately remedies the violations of
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) by Respondent Kinney,
and the violations of Section 8(b)(1) (A) and (2) by
Respondent Local 399, following the issuance of the
Trial Examiner's Decision, upon Board acceptance
of an appropriate stipulation, and at Board
direction, the Regional Director for Region 31
conducted a representation election among the
subject employees. Pursuant to the results of that
election, Respondent Local 399 has been certified as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees involved herein. In light of these
developments, certain portions of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order are now no longer
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, and,
accordingly we shall modify the Recommended
Order in the manner set out below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Kinney National Maintenance Services, a Division
of Western Building Maintenance Company, Los
Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, and Respondent, Service and
Maintenance Employees Union, Local 399, Building
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph I, A, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and
substitute the following:
"2. Encouraging membership in Local 399, or in
any other labor organization, either by conditioning
the hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment of its Parklabrea
maintenance employees upon membership in, or
dues payments to, any such labor organization,
except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or by
refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers.
"3. Discouraging membership in or activities on
behalf of Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers &
Helpers, Local 986, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers
of America, or any other labor organization by
terminating the employee status of unfair labor
practice strikers by denying them reinstatement
upon their unconditional application to return to
work.
"4. In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
'The Respondent Kinney has requested oral argument . This request is
hereby denied as the record, the exceptions and briefs adequately present
the issues and positions of the parties.
177 NLRB No. 53
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Delete paragraph I, B, 1, and renumber
succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
3. Delete paragraph II, A, 1 and 2, of the Trial
Examiner ' s Recommended Order; renumber
paragraph II, A, 3, as paragraph II, A, 2; and
substitute the following as new paragraph II, A, 1:
"Causing or attempting to cause Kinney to
discriminate against its employees by conditioning
their hire or tenure of employment upon
membership in, or dues payments to, Local 399,
except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act."
4. Delete the second, third, and fourth indented
paragraphs from Appendix B.
5. Delete the first and second indented paragraphs
from Appendix C, and substitute the following:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Kinney
to discriminate against its employees by
conditioning their hire or tenure of employment
upon membership in Local 399, except as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
MAURICE ALEXANDRE , Trial Examiner : This case' was
heard at Los Angeles, California , on March 26 through 29
and on July 25, 1968, upon an amended consolidated
complaint' alleging that Respondents Kinney and Local
399 have violated Sections 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and
8(b)(I)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended . Respondents deny the commission of
unfair labor practices.' The principal and pivotal issue is
whether certain newly acquired employees constituted an
accretion to an existing collective -bargaining unit.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the
witnesses , and the briefs filed by the General Counsel, by
the Charging Party and by each Respondent , I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS'
1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of Events
Respondent Kinney is one of the six wholly owned
subsidiaries, doing business in the Los Angeles
'The above caption reflects a correction in the designation of Local 399.
'The original consolidated complaint , issued on February 15, 1968, was
based on a charge filed on December 7, 1967 in Case 31-CA-927, an
amended charge riled in that case on February 7, 1968, and a charge filed
in Case 31 -CB-330 on the latter date . On February 23, 1968 , a charge in
Case 31-CA-997 was filed and , based on that charge , the General Counsel
was permitted to amend the consolidated complaint at the hearing so as to
allege additional unfair labor practices by Respondent Kinney related to
those already alleged.
'Following amendment of the complaint, Kinney filed a document,
entitled Amendment to the Answers to the consolidated complaint, setting
forth several affirmative defenses . Thereafter , in a second amendment to
its answer , Kinney withdrew one of the affirmative defenses and orally
withdrew several other affirmative defenses.
No issue of commerce is presented . The complaint alleges, the answer
admits, and the parties stipulated to, facts which , I find , establish that
Kinney at all times material has engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. I further find that
Local 399 and Local 986 are labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act.
Metropolitan area, of a parent corporation , Kinney
National Services , Inc., which also has subsidiaries doing
business in other parts of the United States . Kinney and
the other subsidiaries are all engaged in the business of
furnishing building cleaning , operation and maintenance
services . The dispute in this proceeding involved Kinney's
operations and employees at a large Los Angeles
residential apartment complex owned and operated by
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and commonly
known as Parklabrea.
Prior to December 5 , 1967, Metropolitan Life
performed the cleaning and maintenance functions at
Parklabrea through its own employees . So far as the
record shows , such employees were not represented by a
majority collective-bargaining agent , although a few had
signed Local 986 authorization cards sometime between
July and November 1967. In the middle of the latter
month , Metropolitan Life and Kinney entered into an oral
contract under which Kinney agreed that on December 5,
1967, it would take over the cleaning and maintenance
functions at Parklabrea , and it was apparently
contemplated that Kinney would take over Metropolitan's
maintenance employees . At that time , Kinney and its
affiliated subsidiaries in the Los Angeles area were parties
to a master collective-bargaining agreement covering their
employees , entered into with Local 399 and certain of its
sister locals on February 17, 1967 . Local 399 insisted
upon making certain changes in the master agreement
insofar as it would apply to Parklabrea employees and
Kinney thereupon made proposals for other modifications.
Kinney and Local 399 held about six meetings , the terms
of a supplemental contract governing the Parklabrea
maintenance employees were finally agreed to on
December 2 , 1967, and a written supplemental contract
was signed by the parties on December 5, 1967.
On the day before execution of the contract , i.e., on
December 4, Metropolitan Life called a meeting of its
approximately 150 Parklabrea maintenance employees.
About 130 attended . Metropolitan Life informed the
employees that Kinney would take over the maintenance
and service functions on the following day, and that their
employment by Metropolitan would cease as of 12:01 a.m.
on December 5. Raskin , the president and general
manager of Kinney and its Los Angeles affiliates, then
invited the employees to apply for employment with
Kinney at the same rate of pay they were receiving, and
outlined other benefits they would receive . At the close of
his remarks , Raskin introduced Conroy, the new project
manager for Kinney at Parklabrea, and a number of
Kinney representatives who would conduct employment
interviews . These representatives, who wore badges
bearing the name Kinney , proceeded to distribute packets
of literature to each employee . In addition to a Kinney
employment application, each packet included the
following documents: a notice to new employees, copies of
the master collective-bargaining agreement and the
supplemental contract, an application for membership in
Local 399, an authorization for payroll deduction of Local
399 dues and initiation fees, and a form for designation of
beneficiary under the Local 399 health and welfare trust
fund. Among other things , the Notice stated that Kinney
was a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 399 which required new employees to become and
remain members in good standing of that union after 30
days as a condition of employment; that if they did not
become and remain members in good standing , Kinney
would be required to discharge them at the request of
Local 399 ; and that Kinney was providing them with
KINNEY NATIONAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES 381
Local 399 application and checkoff cards which, if signed,
would be transmitted by Kinney to Local 399.
Approximately 95 of those present signed Local 399
application and checkoff cards and gave them to Kinney
representatives at the meeting on December 4. On the
following day, 29 additional signed applications and
checkoff cards were turned in to Kinney. Apparently
Kinney hired all of those applicants. Kinney transmitted
the membership applications and checkoff cards to Local
399 and, pursuant thereto, thereafter deducted and paid
over dues to Local 399.
Thereafter, Kurnick, one of the Parklabrea employees
who had been taken over by Kinney and who was a
member of Teamsters Local 986, expressed to other
employees the view that they had a right to select their
own union . A number of Kinney's Parklabrea
maintenance employees met several times with
representatives of the Teamsters Union; and at a meeting
on January 31, 1968, more than 60 of the 70-odd
employees present voted to strike. On February 5, 1968,
some 35 to 40 of Kinney' s Parklabrea maintenance
employees went on to strike and began picketing at
Parklabrea. On the same day, Local 986 filed a petition to
certification as bargaining representative of Kinney's
Parklabrea maintenance employees.'
On various dates between February 9 and March 7,
1968, a number of strikers unconditionally applied to
Kinney for reinstatement . On March 5 and 6, some of the
strikers were permitted to return to work, but others had
not been reinstated at the time of the hearing.
B. Contention , Analysis , and Conclusions
The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that
Kinney and Local 399 entered into their supplemental
contract covering the Parklabrea maintenance employees
at a time when Local 399 was not the majority
representative of such employees, i.e. that the contract
was agreed to on December 2 and that a majority did not
join Local 399 until December 4; but that even if the
contract were regarded as having come into existence
when it was formally executed on December 5, the Local
399 membership cards signed at the December 4 meeting
were invalid because obtained through coercion. For these
reasons and since the contract contained a union-security
provision, it is contended, Kinney violated Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act, and Local 399 violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. The General Counsel and
Charging Party further contend that the strike by
Kinney's Parklabrea maintenance employees was caused
by the unfair labor practices; and that as unfair labor
practice strikers, those who unconditionally applied
therefor are entitled to reinstatement.
Asserting that the Parklabrea project was merely an
accretion to the existing unit covered by the master
collective-bargaining agreement, a claim contradicted by
'Case 31-RC-763. On February 19, 1968 , i.e., several days after issuance
of the complaint herein on February 15, Local 986 filed with the Regional
Director a request to proceed with its petition notwithstanding the unfair
labor practice charges which it had filed, together with a letter containing a
commitment that it would withdraw those charges if Local 399 should be
certified as the bargaining representative of such employees . A hearing was
held on the petition on March 13 , 1968. The transcript of testimony and
the exhibits received in Case 31 -RC-763 were made a part of the record in
the instant proceeding , and the parties stipulated that the witnesses in that
case would , if called as witnesses in the instant proceeding , repeat their
testimony. The parties further stipulated that they adopted the stipulations
received in Case 31-RC-763.
the General Counsel and the Charging Party, Kinney and
Local 399 contend that it was lawful for them to enter
into the supplemental contract. Asserting that it lawfully
requested the Parklabrea employees to join Local 399, and
that a majority did join without coercion, Kinney further
contends that it was not only authorized, but obligated, to
recognize Local 399 as representative of its Parklabrea
maintenance employees. Finally Kinney contends that the
strike was violative of the master collective agreement and
was opposed by Local 399; that the employees who struck
accordingly did not engage in activities protected by
Section 7 of the Act; and that they were not entitled to
reinstatement.
I agree with the General Counsel and the Charging
Party.
1. Assistance
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1), and (2), and (3)
of the Act, and a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2), where the employer recognizes and enters into a
contract containing a union-security provision with the
union at a time when it does not represent a majority of
his employees in an appropriate unit. Food Employers
Council, Inc., 163 NLRB No. 58, enfd. 399 F.2d 501
(C.A. 9). This does not preclude recognition of an
incumbent union as the representative of a newly acquired
group of employees who are merely an "accretion" to the
existing bargaining unit. Ibid.
It is undisputed that Kinney and Local 399 reached
final agreement upon the terms of their supplemental
contract covering the Parklabrea maintenance employees
on December 2, 1967, and that Local 399 did not
represent a majority of such employees on that date. By
such conduct, Respondents violated the Act unless those
employees can properly be considered an accretion to the
existing unit of employees already covered by the master
agreement between Respondents, or unless recognition
was authorized on some other basis.
(a) The defense based on accretion
(1) The evidence
Kinney and its five affiliates employ a total of about
1,800 employees at about 500 job locations in the Los
Angeles Metropolitan area . These job locations include
one other apartment complex,' several commercial
buildings, a sports arena known as the Forum , airport
passenger terminal facilities of various airlines, and a
television studio.' Kinney and its affiliates have a single
payroll department, one chief executive officer and general
manager , one controller, and one overall labor policy for
all the job locations. As already noted, the employees at
these job locations have been covered by a master
collective-bargaining agreement between Kinney and its
affiliates on the one hand, and Local 399 and certain
sister locals on the other hand.' Among other things, that
agreement provides as follows:
`The Wilshire-Comstock, which consists of 200 apartments in two
20-story buildings situated on about one and one-half acres of land, where
Kinney employes 12 to 15 maintenance employees.
'Of these, the airport job is geographically larger than Parklabrea, and
Kinney employs a greater number of employees at the Forum project than
at Parklabrea.
The agreement continues until February 28, 1969, and from year to
year thereafter , unless modified or cancelled upon 60 days' notice
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WHEREAS, the Employer recognizes the Union as
the sole collective bargaining agent for its employees
within the industry within the area of Los Angeles and
vicinity;
* s • s •
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
s s * s s
ARTICLE II - UNION RECOGNITION
Section 1 . Scope of Bargaining Unit
A. The Employer hereby recognizes the Union
signatory hereto as the sole collective bargaining
representative for all the employees coming under the
classification of this Agreement and within the
jurisdiction of each of the respective unions signatory
hereto.
The agreement also contains a union -security provision. In
addition , Appendix C of agreement, entitled "Schedule for
Newly Organized Establishments," contains provisions
governing the wage rates and other benefits in situations
where the Employer acquires a job and takes over the
employees already working at an establishment where no
collective-bargaining agreement between the employer and
Local 399 is in effect, but where the wage rates or other
benefits are in excess of those provided in the master
agreement . The employees of 10 to 15 of the jobs
locations covered by the master agreement are also
covered by supplemental contracts.'
Parklabrea consists of 18 high -rise towers and a
number of garden-type buildings occupying about 170
acres and containing more than 4,000 apartments. The
complex also includes recreation areas, garage facilities,
and a maintenance building containing specialized
maintenance shops . At Parklabrea, Kinney employes
about 150 employees who are roughly divided into three
categories of specialization : porters, grounds-keepers, and
semiskilled handymen . These employees perform
substantially similar duties at Parklabrea as Kinney's
employees do at its other locations, i.e, the porters pick
up and haul trash, and clean and wax floors; the
grounds-keepers cut grass and do trimming ; and the
handymen perform light repair work such as carpentry,
electric maintenance , plumbing, repair of stoves, venetian
blinds, and sprinklers , and automotive maintenance.
Metropolitan Life has made 20 to 25 automobiles
available to Kinney for use exclusively in connection with
its maintenance functions at Parklabrea.
About 90 percent of Kinney's other job locations are
located within a 10-mile radius of Parklabrea. The
television studio is located less than a mile , and the
Wilshire-Comstock is located about 2-1/2 miles, from
Parklabrea.
When Kinney took over the Parklabrea operation, it
brought in its own project manager , Controy, who
confines himself to management of that operation. He
supervises the day to day activities of the employees and
and has authority to hire and fire at Parklabrea without
consulting Kinney's .central office . Kinney, however,
'Raskin , the president of Kinney and its Los Angeles affiliates, testified
that the "reason that the supplements arc necessary is because of special
conditions that anse from time to time on a given plant or industrial
consideration that calls for it" as for example , the wage structure of the
job; and that some of the supplements "have deleted the substantial part of
all sections" of the master agreement.
brought in no other permanent supervisory employees, but
either retained Parklabrea employees already occupying
supervisory positions or filled vacancies by promotion of
rank and file employees. Since the time Kinney took over
the nonsupervisory employees at Parklabrea, there has
been no interchange of such employees between
Parklabrea and Kinney's other job locations, except on
two occasions. On February 5, 1968, when the strike
began, about a dozen porters and handymen were
transferred to Parklabrea as replacements for strikers.
About March 5, when some of the strikers were
reinstated, a few porters who had served as replacements
were transferred out of Parklabrea. Raskin testified that
Kinney interchanges its employees as the need arises, e.g.,
when it acquires a new job which has no employees or
requires competent and experienced employees; but that
because Kinney has serviced Parklabrea for only a short
time, there has been no need for interchange of
nonsupervisory employees.
Raskin further testified that he had planned to apply
the master agreement to Parklabrea; but that Local 399
insisted upon certain modifications of the agreement,
particularly in the wage structure; and that Kinney
accordingly made proposals for other modifications. Their
supplemental contract, agreed upon December 2 and
executed December 5, 1967, provided that it shall
constitute a supplement to the master agreement, that the
terms of such agreement shall remain in full force and
effect except as modified in the supplement, and that the
supplement shall apply only to Kinney's maintenance
employees at Parklabrea. It further provided that a
number of the provisions in the master agreement shall
not apply to such employees. These included a provision
permitting Local 399 to take strike action if Kinney failed
to check off dues or otherwise breached the contract; a
lengthy provision regulating maintenance of working
conditions, such as employee speed-up, layoff,
termination, and subcontracting; and provisions relating to
employee leaves of absence because of illness or injury.
The supplement also made a number of changes in the
provisions of the master agreement. It established four job
classifications which do not appear in the master
agreement. Whereas that agreement fixes hourly pay rates
ranging from $2.08 to $2.53 for the classifications
contained therein, the supplement fixed weekly rates
ranging from $91.50 to $129.50 for the said four
classifications. It also made changes in the provisions
relating to overtime and vacation pay, and added one paid
holiday.
Raskin testified that there are about 100 maintenance
and service companies of significant size in the Los
Angeles Metropolitan area, of which about 15 may be
considered major companies; that there are approximately
5,000 to 6,000 maintenance employees in that area who
are covered by the master agreement; that it is industry
practice to apply the master agreement to employees at
newly acquired job locations; and that Kinney has
followed that practice.'' Finally, Raskin testified as
follows:
Q. (By Mr. Cooper) Just one more question, Mr.
Raskin. What would the relationship be between the
company-wide unit of employees for purposes of
bargaining and the operational organization of Kinney
in the Greater Los Angeles area?
"Raskin testified that Kinney loses about 5 contracts and acquires an
average of 10 to 15 contracts a month
KINNEY NATIONAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES
A. Well, as I explained before, we operate on what I
have described as a unitized type of consideration with
myself as general manager , having various operating
and department heads reporting directly to me, the
controller , operations manager , sales manager.
And within our organizational structure we almost
by necessity , almost absolute necessity , have to treat
this as a companywide unit.
As I would visualize it, anything else would almost
be-well , very , very difficult . You'd have chaos . I can't
imagine us taking on a new job, as an example, and
having one or two employees and having to go out and
negotiate , having to go out and having the possibility of
competing unions vie with one another , possibilities of
jurisdictional problems.
As I would see it, it would almost be one of total
chaos . It would lead to lack of stability. Also the
security of the employees I think would be very much
in jeopardy.
Q. (By Mr. Cooper) Mr. Raskin , in your opinion,
what would be the result of separate collective
bargaining for each job project in the building service
and maintenance industry?
* * * * *
THE WITNESS: No. It 1 interpret the question correctly,
this would involve almost a company to man type of
negotiation , or a job by job type, involving , one, partial
people, many people between them and the company,
and I could visualize utter chaos in our industry to the
extent that we would have no pattern of being able to
bid our job.
We would have no pattern of being able to offer
stability. It would further seem to me that in terms of
stability and security relating to the employees, they
would be completely at the mercy of the employers, if
this went on in a man to company type of basis, and
the things that had been worked out in terms of a wage
structure , working conditions , fringes, health and
welfare and pension benefits that have resulted from a
stabilized procedural type of thing would just be thrown
out the window.
I don ' t see how else you could look at it, if we have
to go man to man, and company to man type of thing,
and we would all be in a contest trying to get work and
the respective companies would be in a contest between
themselves and their employees . It would just be total
chaos.
How else can you thing of it?
(2) Concluding findings
Respondents predicate their claim that its Parklabrea
maintenance employees are an accretion to the existing
contract unit upon the following factors. The work done
by such employees is the same type of work as that
performed by Kinney employees at its other job locations.
Geographically, Parklabrea is very close to some of the
other projects. Kinney has centralized administrative
management of all its projects and a single labor policy.
Since Kinney has operated at Parklabrea for only a short
period, the need for interchange of employees between
that operation and its other jobs has not arisen. But in
view of the interchangeability of skills of its employees
and the geographical proximity of its job locations, there
is a potential for employee interchange which is expected
383
to occur with varying frequency. The pay scale and fringe
benefits for Kinney ' s employees at Parklabrea and at its
other locations are "substantially" the same . The master
agreement provides that it shall cover the employees at
newly acquired job locations, and Kinney and other major
employers in the industry have followed the practice of
accreting such employees . To prohibit such practice would
allegedly result in chaos in the industry for several
reasons . Maintenance contracts are usually terminable on
short notice. Price competition is keen and job locations
are lost and acquired by employers with some frequency.
To establish each location as a separate unit and require
an election therein would result in different wage rates,
fringe benefits and working conditions which would lead
to labor unrest and strife. In some cases, it would also
effectively deny employees any representation since the job
location may have been awarded to another employer by
the time the election results were determined.
The General Counsel and Charging Party point to a
number of other considerations which , they assert, show
that there was no accretion . There was no interchange of
nonsupervisory employees between Parklabrea and other
Kinney projects until February 5, 1968, when the strike
began. Parklabrea is unique in that Kinney services no
residential apartment complex of similar size and scope in
Southern California . Parklabrea is a self-contained unit: it
can be and is operated wholly independently of Kinney's
other job locations; its employees, some of whom have
worked at Parklabrea for many years, are functionally
specialized ; and the employees have their own immediate
supervision , which does not simultaneously supervise other
Kinney operations.
Although the criteria used in resolving unit and
accretion issues are very similar , the considerations
involved are not identical . Where there are competing
claims for a single -plant and multi-plant unit, the
resolution of such claims does not deprive the employees
of their right to vote . The determination , which may
decide that one or either is an appropriate unit, merely
decides in which grouping or groupings the employees
should be permitted to vote in order to assure to them
"the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by
this Act." Section 9(b) of the Act. Where, on the other
hand , the claim is made that a group of employees
constitutes an accretion to an existing unit, a
determination in favor of accretion forecloses a vote and
thus restricts the employees in the exercise of their basic
right to select their bargaining representative . That right
"is the controlling and dominant factor under Section 7 of
the Act and thus is to be restricted only under compelling
condition ." Sunset House, 167 NLRB No. 132.
I find that the considerations relied on by Respondents
are outweighed by other factors . Kinney' s Parklabrea
project is a completely self-sustaining and autonomous
operation with its own independent supervision and its
own facilities . Kinney's 150 Parklabrea employees
constitute a sizable group . Whether or not they may in the
future be interchanged with those at Kinney's other job
locations , the only ,such interchange shown by the record
occurred as a result of the strike, not because of any
normal integration of the Parklabrea work force with
Kinney's other employees . In addition , as Respondents
admit in their briefs, the wages provided in the
supplemental contract covering Kinne !s Parklabrea
employees are higher than those set forth in the master
agreement . Although Respondents seek 'to minimize the
wage differences , they are oral insubstantial. The
employees also receive an additional paid holiday. For
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these reasons, I find that such employees have a
community of interest apart from Kinney's other
employees and should not be required to accept Local 399
as their bargaining representative without their consent.
Cf. Food Employers Council, Inc., supra; Beacon Photo
Service, Inc., 163 NLRB No. 98.
A different conclusion is not required by the fact that
Kinney and others in the industry have customarily
followed the practice of accreting newly acquired job
locations. Cf. Super Markets General Corp., 170 NLRB
No. 61. Respondents have themselves recognized
differences between Kinney's employees at Parklabrea and
those at most of its other job locations by adopting a
supplemental contract which made significant changes in
the master agreement insofar as it applied to the
Parklabrea employees. Moreover, the employees at 10 to
15 of Kinney's job locations are covered by supplemental
contracts which modify wage and other provisions of the
master agreement. That fact greatly weakens the
argument that lack of uniformity of wages and other
benefits would bring chaos to the industry.
I find that Kinney's Parklabrea maintenance employees
were not an accretion to the contract unit " This is not to
say that an election must be held whenever a claim is
made that Kinney's employees at a newly acquired job
location constitute a separate unit Each situation must be
decided on its own facts
(b) The defense of majority based on authorization
cards
As noted, Local 399 was not the majority representative
of the Parklabrea maintenance employees on December 2,
1967, when Respondents reached final oral agreement on
the terms of their supplemental contract, inasmuch as a
majority of such employees did not sign Local 399
application cards until December 4, 1967. Thus, even if
they signed the cards voluntarily and without coercion, a
defense based on that majority necessarily presupposes an
accretion. But since I have found that no accretion
occurred, the defense is without merit.
Perhaps Kinney is implying that it had a majority by
the time the supplemental contract was signed on
December 5. The difficulty with that position is that it
disregards the Respondents' oral agreement of December
2. But even if such agreement had not occurred, the
defense of majority would fall. Since, as I have found,
there was no accretion, the contents of the notice included
in the preemployment packet of papers distributed by
Kinney representatives at the December 4 meeting
"in their briefs , Respondents rely upon the following decisions in which
accretions were found : N L R B v. Illinois Malleable Iron Co , 298 F 2d
202 (C.A 7), Alaska Steamship Co, 172 NLRB No 124, Revach
Construction Co, 161 NLRB 1269, Great A & P Tea Co, 140 NLRB
1011, Safeway Stores, Inc, 137 NLRB 1741, Local No 32. Industrial
Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers ( Rawls Brothers Contractors.
Inc), 133 NLRB 1077; Daniel Construction Co , inc , 133 NLRB 264;
Red Ball Freight, Inc, 118 NRLB 360, and Haddon Bindery, 101 NLRB
208. All of those cases are distinguishable from the instant proceeding
Daniel did not involve the issue of accretion. In Illinois Malleable, the
Court pointed out that the newly acquired foundry had been integrated
into the employer 's other plants , which also utilized virtually the entire
production of the foundry. In A & P, the new department had been
integrated into the the employer ' s other operations and was not an
autonomous and separate operation In Red Ball, the new employees had
been reclassified under the employer's systemwide classification and had
been placed on a systemwide seniority list. In Alaska Steamship. Rexach,
Local No 32, and Haddon, the employees had been transferred or
interchanged.
contained incorrect information which could reasonably
lead those present to believe that if they wished to work
for Kinney they had no ultimate choice but to join Local
399. Those present were thus subjected to unlawful
coercion to join Local 399. Kinney compounded such
pressure on them by distributing Local 399 application
and checkoff cards and then accepting signed cards for
transmittal to Local 399. Although there is no direct
evidence that copies of the notice were also distributed to
Parklabrea employees who signed Local 399 cards and
gave them to Kinney after December 4, it is reasonable to
infer either that such employees attended the December 4
meeting and received preemployment packets containing
the notice and Local 399 cards, or that in the case of
those who did not attend the meeting, Kinney followed a
uniform hiring procedure and furnished such employees
with packets identical with those distributed at the
December 4 meeting, and hence that such employees were
also subjected to unlawful coercion to join Local 399. Cf.
Mr. Wicke Ltd. Co., 172 NLRB No. 181.
In such circumstances, I find that the Local 399
application and checkoff cards signed on and after
December 4 by Parklabrea maintenance employees hired
by Kinney did not reflect the free and untrammeled choice
of the signers, and hence that Local 399 did not have a
majority even at the time the supplemental contract was
executed.'2 Cf. Department Store Food Corp. of Penna,
172 NLRB No. 129; S. D. Cohoon & Sons, 101 NLRB
966."
(c) Concluding findings respecting assistance
I find that by distributing the misleading Notice and
the Local 399 application and checkoff cards to
Parklabrea maintenance employees on and after
December 4, 1967, by accepting signed cards from such
employees for transmittal to Local 399, and by checking
off their dues thereafter, Kinney unlawfully assisted Local
399, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2). I further find
that by reaching agreement respecting the terms of their
supplemental contract on December 2, 1967, by executing
the contract on December 5, by extending the
union-security and other provisions of their master
agreement to the Parklabrea maintenance employees, and
by maintaining and enforcing such supplemental contract
and master agreement as to such employees, all at a time
when Local 399 did not represent a free, unassisted and
uncoerced majority of such employees, Respondent
Kinney violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and
Respondent Local 399 violated Section 8(b) (1)(A) and
(2).
2. The reinstatement issue
(a) The evidence
After signing the Local 399 application and checkoff
cards, Kinney employees held several meetings with
"I note that in its brief, Kinney merely asserts.
As far as Kinney is aware, the cards were uncoerced expressions of
the desires of the employees for representation.
"In view of the findings and recommended order herein, it is
unnecessary to decide whether , as the General Counsel also contends,
Kinney representatives exerted further pressure at the December 4 meeting
by refusing to accept the employment applications of two applicants unless
accompanied by Local 399 application cards, and by conveying to two
other applicants the impression that they were required , as a condition of
employment, to sign Local 399 applications cards immediately ; i.e., within
the 30-day grace period
KINNEY NATIONAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Teamster representatives between December 14, 1967 and
January 31, 1968. One was an organizational meeting and
at another, the status of the charges filed in this
proceeding was discussed. At the meeting held on January
31, at which time about 70 employees were present, there
was further disucssion of the charges, a Teamsters
representative asked the employees whether they wanted
Local 399 or Local 986 as their bargaining representative,
the employees voiced their desire for Local 986, and some
called for a strike. The Teamsters representative then
explained that resolution of the charges could take a long
time, that those who struck could lose their jobs, and that
they should carefully consider the problem before deciding
to strike. The employees then voted overwhelmingly to
strike.
Thereafter, on February 5, 1968, some 35 to 40 Kinney
employees struck and began picketing at Parklabrea,
carrying two picket signs . One read "Kinney Operations
at Parklabrea Unfair, Teamster Local 986." The other
sign used the phrase "On Strike" in place of the word
"Unfair." During the first week of the strike, some of the
pickets passed out handbills stating , among other things,
that the men were on strike because they had been forced
to join Local 399, a union they did not want, and because
they desired an election by secret ballot.
The strikers included the 25 Kinney employees listed in
Appendix A attached hereto. On February 29, 1968, Local
986 sent a telegram to Kinney making an unconditional
offer to return to work on behalf of "all" the strikers. On
March 4, 1968, 20 of the 25 strikers listed in Appendix A,
together with a number of others, personally appeared at
Parklabrea and again unconditionally offered to return to
work. On March 5 and 6, 1968, Kinney returned a
number of strikers to work but, with one possible
exception," the 25 strikers listed in Appendix A had not
been reinstated at the time of the hearing."
(b) Concluding findings
I find that the employees struck in protest against
Kinney's conduct in imposing Local 399 upon them as
their bargaining representative. Since, as found above,
such conduct constituted unfair labor practices, the strike
was an unfair labor practice strike. And since the 25
strikers made unconditional offers to return to work, they
were entitled to reinstatement. Accordingly, Kinney's
refusal and failure to reinstate them violated Section 8(a)
(3) and (l) of the Act.
Kinney does not dispute the reason for the strike or the
offers to return to work. Its sole defense is that the
employees are not entitled to reinstatement because the
strike did not constitute protected acvity, i.e., it was
contrary to the wishes of and opposed by Local 399, and
it was violative of the limited right to strike contained in
the master agreement . This argument is without merit.
The strike was not a "wildcat" strike since Local 399 was
not the lawful bargaining representative of Kinney's
"rho parties stipulated that they were without present knowledge as to
whether Mitchell Smith had been returned to work , and were willing to
defer the determination of that fact to any backpay proceeding.
"In addition to his offers to return to work as aforesaid , one of the
strikers , Skarbowicz , made two other offers to return to work, once in
person on February 9 and once by telephone on March 7 . None of those
offers were accepted.
385
Parklabrea maintenance employees. It did not violate the
master agreement because those employees were not
lawfully bound by the agreement. Accordingly, I find that
the strike constituted protected activity."
11. THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondents cease and desist
from their unfair labor practices, and that they take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
More specifically, I shall recommend that Respondent
Kinney withdraw and withhold recognition from Local
399 as the collective-bargaining representative of Kinney's
Parklabrea maintenance employees and that Local 399
cease acting as such representative, unless and until Local
399 is certified as such representative by the National
Labor Relations Board.
I shall also recommend that Kinney and Local 399
cease giving effect to their master agreement of February
17, 1967 with respect to Kinney's Parklabrea maintenance
employees, to their supplemental contract agreed to on
December 2 and signed on December 5, 1967, and to any
extension, renewal or modification thereof. However,
nothing herein shall be construed as requiring Kinney to
vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority or other
substantive features of its relations with employees
established in the performance of such master agreement
and supplemental contract.
Since I have found coercion as to Kinney's Parklabrea
maintenance employees who joined Local 399 on and after
December 4, 1967, i.e., after the unlawful oral
supplemental contract of December 2, 1967, I shall
recommend that Kinney and Local 399, jointly and
severally, reimburse such employees, past and present, for
all dues and other monies illegally exacted from them by
or on behalf of Local 399 pursuant to the oral contract,
the written contract signed on December 5, and the
master agreement which was extended to them. Mr.
Wicke Ltd. Co., supra. Reimbursement shall include
interest at 6 percent per annum.
I shall also recommend that Kinney offer to the unfair
labor strikers named in Appendix A immediate and full
reinstatement to the positions which they held at the time
of the discrimination against them or to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges. I shall further recommend
that Kinney make each of them whole for any loss of
earnings suffered because of its discrimination against
them by paying to each a sum of money equal to that
which would have been paid by Kinney from the date of
the discrimination against him to the date on which
Kinney offers reinstatement as aforesaid, less his net
earnings, if any, during the said period. The loss of
earnings under the order recommended shall be computed
in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
"In its brief, Kinney relies upon Simmons , Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 315 F.2d
143 (C.A. 1); N.L.R.B v. Sunbeam Lighting Co., 318 F.2d 661 (C.A. 7);
and Packers Hide Association . Inc. v. N L.R B., 360 F 2d 59 (C.A. 8).
These decisions are inapposite The decisions in Simmons and Packers held
that the strikes violated binding bargaining agreements ; and in Sunbeam,
the court held that the strike was not authorized by the strikers' certified
bargaining representative.
386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By recognizing Local 399 as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Kinney's Parklabrea maintenance
employees, by agreeing to the provisions of the
supplemental contract on December 2, by executing the
contract on December 5, 1967, by extending to such
employees the union-security and other provisions of the
master agreement of February 17, 1967, and by
maintaining and enforcing such master agreement and
supplemental contract as to such employees, all at a time
when Local 399 was a minority union and not the freely
designated bargaining representative of a majority of such
employees , Kinney has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of the
Act.
2. By agreeing to and executing the supplemental
contract, and by extending the master agreement, under
the circumstances referred to above, Local 399 has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully assisting Local 399 in obtaining signed
application and checkoff cards, Kinney has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. The employee strike which began on February 5,
1968 was an unfair labor practice strike.
5. All the strikers named in Appendix A made
unconditional offers to Kinney to return to work.
6. By refusing to reinstate such strikers , Kinney has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
I. Respondent Kinney, its officers, agents , successors,
and assigns, shall:
A. Cease and desist from:
1. Unlawfully assisting Local 399 or any other labor
organization in obtaining application and checkoff cards,
and from granting exclusive recognition to and executing a
collective-bargaining agreement with any labor
organization which does not represent a free , unassisted
and uncoerced majority of its employees in an appropriate
unit.
2. Recognizing Local 399 as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its Parklabrea maintenance employees
unless and until the National Labor Relations Board shall
certify Local 399 as such representative.
3. Maintaining or giving any force or effect to the
master agreement of February 17, 1967, with Local 399
with respect to Kinney' s Parklabrea maintenance
employees, or to the supplemental contract with Local 399
agreed to on December 2 and executed on December 5,
1967, or to any extension , renewal, or modification
thereof; provided, however , that nothing in this order shall
require Kinney to vary or abandon any wage, or other
substantive feature of its relations with its Parklabrea
maintenance employees which have been established in the
performance of the said master agreement or
supplemental contract , or to prejudice the assertion by the
said employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
4. Encouraging membership in Local 399, or in any
other labor organization , either by conditioning the hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment of its Parklabrea maintenance employees
upon membership in, or dues payments to, any such labor
organization, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or by refusing
to reinstate unfair labor strikers.
5. In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action:
1. Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local
399 as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
Parklabrea maintenance employees unless and until Local
399 has been duly certified as such representative by the
National Labor Relations Board.
2. Jointly and severally with Local 399, reimburse all of
its former and present Parklabrea maintenance employees
who joined Local 399 on or after December 4, 1967, for
all dues and other monies illegally exacted from them by
or on behalf of Local 399, in the manner provided in the
section herein entitled "The Remedy."
3. Offer to the employees named in Appendix A
attached hereto immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, and make
each of them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by
reason of its discrimination, in the manner set forth in the
section herein entitled "The Remedy."
4. Preserve and made available to the Board or its
agents on request, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, checkoff cards,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay, dues and other monies payable under the terms
of this Recommended Order.
5. Notify the employees named in Appendix A if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
6. Post, at such places in Parklabrea where notices to
its employees are normally posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B."" Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Kinney, be posted as aforesaid in
conspicuous places by Kinney immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Kinney to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
7. Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith."
II. Respondent Local 399, its officers, agents,
representatives, successors, and assigns , shall:
A. Cease and desist from:
1. Acting as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Kinney's Parklabrea maintenance
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 31 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
KINNEY NATIONAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES
employees unless and until duly certified as such
representative by the National Labor Relations Board.
2. Giving effect to the master agreement of February
17, 1967, with Kinney with respect to Kinney's Parklabrea
maintenance employees , and to the supplemental contract
with Kinney agreed to on December 2, 1967, and signed
on December 5, 1967, or to any extension , renewal or
modification thereof.
3. In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing Kinney ' s Parklabrea maintenance
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act.
B. Take the following affirmative action:
1. Jointly and severally with Kinney, reimburse all of
Kinney ' s former and present Parklabrea maintenance
employees who joined Local 399 on or after December 4,
1967, for all dues and other monies illegally exacted from
them by or on behalf of Local 399, in the manner set
forth herein in the section entitled "The Remedy."
2. Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents , for examination and copying , all membership,
dues and other records necessary to analyze the amount of
dues and other monies referred to above.
3. Post at its offices and meeting halls in Los Angeles,
California, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix C." 19 Copies of such notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of Local 399,
be posted by Local 399 immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Local 399 to ensure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
4. Mail to the Regional Director for Region 31 signed
copies of Appendix C for posting by Kinney in such places
at Parklabrea where notices to Kinney's employees are
normally posted. Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 31, shall after being
signed by a representative of Local 399, be forthwith
returned to the said Regional Director for such posting.
5. Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision , what steps it has taken to comply herewith.30
"See In . 17, supra.
"See In . 18, supra.
Medoro Ambrosini John L. Brown
Morris Armand Joseph R. Brown
Luis Casali Frank Kurnik
Joaquin Casanas George Lagadere
Eustacio Dorado Antonio Negrillo
Mike Doyle Kas. Piernikowski
Shelbey E. Elias Stanislaw Pokora
Manuel Fernandez John Sanchez
Leon Gilbean Piotr Skarbowicz
Haskell E. Jackson Mitchell Smith
Machiel W. Keijzer Tedring Tagalicod
Frantizek Kunsl Curtis Tisdell
Willie Wheeler
APPENDIX A
Medoro Ambrosini
Morris Armand
Luis Casali
Joaquin Casanas
Eustacio Dorado
Mike Doyle
Shelbey E. Elias
Manuel Fernandez
Leon Gilbean
Haskell E . Jackson
Machiel W. Keijzer
Frantizek Kunsl Curtis Tisdell
Willie Wheeler
John L. Brown
Joseph R. Brown
Frank Kurnik
George Lagadere
Antonio Negrillo
Kas. Piernikowski
Stanislaw Pokora
John Sanchez
Piotr Skarbowicz
Mitchell Smith
Tedring Tagalicod
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
387
Pursuant to The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully assist Service and
Maintenance Employees Union, Local 399, Building
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 399 as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our Parklabrea
maintenance employees , unless and until it has been
certified as such representative by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT apply our master agreement of
February 17, 1967, with Local 399 to our Parklabrea
maintenance employees, or give any force or effect to
our supplemental contract with Local 399 agreed to on
December 2 and signed on December 5, 1967, or to any
modification, extension or renewal thereof.
WE ARE NOT required to change or abandon any
or other terms or conditions of employment which we
have given to our Parklabrea maintenance employees
under the master agreement and supplemental contract.
WE WILL NOT withhold or deduct from the wages of
our Parklabrea maintenance employees any monies
pursuant to checkoff cards unlawfully obtained from
such employees.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Local 399,
reimburse our former and present Parklabrea
maintenance employees who joined Local 399 on or
after December 4, 1967, for any dues or other monies
unlawfully obtained from them by or on behalf of Local
399, with interest at 6 percent a year.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discriminate against the
employees named below , and WE WILL offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their old jobs, and
WE WILL,pay them for all back earnings lost as a result
of the discrimination against them.
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join or help unions
To bargain as a group- through representatives
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interfere with any of these rights.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of either
Local 399 or any other union.
KINNEY NATIONAL
MAINTENANCE SERVICES,
A DIVISION OF WESTERN
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Notify the above -named employees if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 215 West
Seventh Street, Los Angeles , California 90014 , Telephone
688-5850.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the Parklabrea maintenance employees
of Kinney National Maintenance Services, A Division
of Western Building Maintenance Company , unless and
until we are certified as such representative by the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT apply our master agreement of
February 17, 1967 , with Kinney to Kinney' s Parklabrea
maintenance employees , or give any effect to our
supplemental contract with Kinney agreed to on
December 2 and signed on December 5, 1967 , or to any
modification, extension or renewal thereof.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate
any of your rights under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Kinney,
all present and former Parklabrea maintenance
employees of Kinney who joined Local 399 on or after
December 4, 1967, for all dues and other monies
illegally obtained from them by or on behalf of Local
399, with interest at 6 percent.
Dated By
SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES
UNION, LOCAL 399,
BUILDING AND SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting , and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office , 215 West
Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90014 , Telephone
688-5850