Adams Book Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 761 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 761
Adams Book Company , Inc. and District 65, National
Council of Distributive Workers of America. Case
29-CA-2815
May 18, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On February 16, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Joseph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
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 exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
volves a complaint 2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act),
which alleges in substance, that Adams Book Company
(herein Respondent or Company), during an organizational
campaign by District 65, National Council of Distributive
Workers of America (herein the Union or District 65), by
(1) interrogating its employees concerning their union sym-
pathies and desires; (2) promising improved wages and
working conditions if employees refrained from assisting
and supporting the Union; (3) terminating four employees
because of their assistance and support of the Union; and
(4) refusing to bargain with the Union as the duly designat-
ed collective-bargaining representative of its employees in
an appropriate unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act. By answer Respondent admitted
certain allegations of the complaint, but denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practice. For reasons hereafter
more fully detailed, I find the material allegations of the
complaint sustained by the evidence, and recommend an
appropriate remedial order which will include a provision
requiring Respondent to recognize and bargain with the
Union.
At the trial all parties were afforded full opportunity to
introduce relevant and material evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and
to submit briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submit-
ted by the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively,
have been duly considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations
of counsel, the evidence, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
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 Respondent, Adams Book Company, Inc.,
Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544,
enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings.
2 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge 's finding of 8(a)(1), (3), and
(5) violations and his recommendation that a bargaining order be issued on
the basis of N L R B v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc, 395 U.S. 575. Accordingly,
we deem it unnecessary to reach the other bases on which the Administrative
Law Judge relies.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
tried before me at Brooklyn, New York, on October 12, 13,
and 24,' with all parties present and duly represented, in-
FINDINGS OF FACT 3
A. The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged
1. Chronology of events
a. Respondent moves its quarters
Respondent is engaged in the sale and distribution of new
and used textbooks and paperbacks to institutions of learn-
ing. Late in the fall of 1971, Respondent decided to move
its quarters to a new location, and for that purpose contract-
ed with a professional mover to move its stock and fixtures
to the new location.4 Under the contract, the mover was
obligated to move all books, both textbooks and paper-
' All dates herein are 1972 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Issued June 29, on a charge filed and served March 28.
3 No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented . The complaint
alleges and by failing to answer such allegations Respondent admitted facts
which establish those jurisdictional elements. I find those facts to be as
pleaded.
4 At the new location , toward the front there are pnvate offices for
Respondent 's management officials , and in back of that there is a large area
where General Manager Raymond and a staff of office clericals perform
their duties . To the rear of the office area , a group of employees classified
as "warehousemen" receive inbound merchandise which they place on
shelves or in bins located in that area, fill orders for shipment to customers,
keep the premises clean , and perform similar functions . In Respondent's
establishment the area where the warehouse employees work is generally
referred to as "the back ," or "the back room"
203 NLRB No. 120
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
backs, from the old location to the new, and place them in
bins, arranged by subject in alphabetical order, in the same
order as they had been in the former premises. The evidence
is undisputed that the mover did not perform his contract
in that regard; instead of placing the books in the bins
properly arranged, he simply deposited the books in huge
mounds on the floor, in no particular order. The task of
getting the books properly placed on shelves or in bins was
performed by Respondent's warehouse employees.
The evidence is uncontradicted that the task of moving
the books to the new location was commenced the day after
Thanksgiving 1971, with the paperbacks being moved first.
It is likewise undisputed that the physical task of moving the
paperbacks to the new location was completed about mid-
December 1971, and the move of the textbooks which fol-
lowed immediately, by about mid-January. There is consid-
erable dispute, however, as to when the task of properly
arranging the books on the shelves was completed, and in
view of Respondent's defenses this factual dispute must be
resolved.5 Company President Schattner testified that the
work of getting the books properly arranged was completed
toward the end of the week beginning on March 20, and
denied that all of the books were straight and on the shelves
by the end of January. This, however, is contrary to the
testimony of those employees who testified on the subject
(Thomas, Rivera, Parris, and Navarro), that there was still
a large volume of books in piles on the floor, and plenty of
work remained to be performed on March 24, when the four
men were terminated . Company General Manager Ray-
mond when first questioned on this subject corroborated
Schattner that all the books were on the shelves and in order
about the end of the third week in March. When confronted
with his prehearing affidavit, Raymond changed his testi-
mony to say that perhaps the aforesaid work was complete
toward the end of February. With respect to this point
Raymond's affidavit reads:
... The physical move began around the middle of
November and ended around January 15, 1972. The
paperbacks were moved first. They were all moved by
about the middle of December. The paperbacks were
straightened out by around the end of January. The
textbooks were moved starting around the middle of
December and were completed around the middle of
January. The textbooks were straightened out around
the end of March. There was still straightening up to
do in both sections until around the end of March.
Based on the testimony of employees Thomas, Rivera, Par-
ris, and Navarro, as well as the inconsistency between
Raymond's testimony and his prehearing affidavit, I find
and conclude that the task of properly shelving and arrang-
5 Respondent contends that employees Victor DeJesus , Anthony Hale,
Lennox Parris , and Robert Rios (alleged in the complaint to have been
discriminatorily laid off on March 24) were hired as temporary employees
solely for the purpose of properly arranging the books , and were terminated
when that task was completed about March 24 . The temporary or permanent
status of the aforesaid employees is also important on the 8 (a)(5) issue her-
eafter considered , as the General Counsel conceded at the hearing that if the
four men referred to were in fact temporary employees the Union did not
have majority status when it demanded and Respondent refused recognition,
and that the refusal to bargain allegations in the complaint would fail for
want of proof.
ing the books had not been completed on March 24, and
that considerable work of that nature remained to be per-
formed on that date. Schattner's contrary testimony I do not
credit.
b. The employees organize
Sometime in February, Peter Van Delft, an organizer for
the Union, received a message through his office that em-
ployees of Adams wished to organize. Van Delft made sev-
eral contracts with the warehouse employees, and in due
course, gave employee Dink Thomas authorization cards
which he was to get employees to sign. Thomas signed a
card himself and obtained cards from warehouse employees
Harry Wilson, Wilfredo Rivera, Victor DeJesus, Nelson
Navarro, James Mans, Anthony Hale, and Robert Rios,
which cards he delivered to the Union. Thomas testified
that he told all the employees solicited that when they
signed the card they would become members of District 65,
and that when the Union came in for recognition they
would not be fired 6 because they were members of the
Union. While the statement on its face is not accurate as a
legal proposition, I find what Thomas sought and did con-
vey to the employees was that they could not lawfully be
fired because they were members of the Union, which, of
course, is an accurate legal statement. Moreover, it may be
noted that in its brief Respondent advances no contention
that the card signed by Thomas, or the card signed by any
other employee, is, for that reason, invalid. Except for the
card signed by Rios on March 14, and the card signed by
Parrs which is dated "14/3/72," all cards were executed
between March 1 and 4.7 The only card that Respondent
does question in its brief is the one signed by Jose Fernen-
dez. Because of his limited understanding of English, Fer-
nendez testified through an interpreter. In substance, his
testimony is that, although he is unable to read English, he
understood that the card was for District 65, "a union which
for me is good, and has benefits." On the basis of this
testimony I find and conclude that Fernendez understood
that by signing the card he was designating the Union as his
collective-bargaining representative. This is all that is re-
quired. Based on the totality of the foregoing, I find and
conclude that on March 20, the Union had in its possession
valid authorization cards from 10 employees, each of whom
was then employed by Respondent in the capacity of ware-
houseman .8
6 In another portion of his testimony Thomas used the words "could"
instead of "would ," but I do not regard the difference as of practical signifi-
cance
r Parrs gave no testimony to explain the date on his card. Van Delft
testified that one of his meetings with employees was between March 9 and
16, and that Parris was present and signed a card Unless the date on the card
means the 14th day of the 3rd month , it is obviously in error In any event,
I find on the basis of Van Delft 's testimony , and the fact that Pams wore
a union button concerning which he was interrogated on March 20, as
hereafter more fully related , that Parrs executed the card prior to March 20
8 Those employees signing cards were Thomas, Navarro, Rivera, Wilson,
Mars, Parrs , Fernandez, DeJesus, Hale, and Rios . An issue hereafter con-
sidered is whether the last four mentioned were temporary employees as
Respondent contends , or permanent, as the General Counsel contends.
ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 763
c. The number of employees in the unit
There is in evidence (Resp. Exh. 5), a payroll for -the
workweek beginning March 20, containing a total of 25
names . All parties are in accord that Carlos Raymond and
James Police are supervisors, and as such must be excluded
from any unit. Of the remaining 23, 7 were admittedly em-
ployed as office clericals, and the other 16 as warehouse-
men.9 This includes Ferrero who, the General Counsel
contends, should be excluded as a supervisor. Respondent
contends that to determine the exact number of persons in
the warehouse unit, there must be excluded the names of
Victor DeJesus, Lennox Parris, Anthony Hale, and Robert
Rios because, as above set forth, they were temporary em-
ployees hired for a specific limited purpose, and that there
should be added the name of Bernard Wachsman, which
does not appear on Respondent's Exhibit 5. The facts relied
upon to support this contention are: Wachsman, who is 82
years old, is the father-in-law of Schattner who has the sole
financial interest in Respondent. The uncontroverted evi-
dence is that he has worked for Respondent for 16 years
cleaning and repairing used textbooks. According to Schatt-
ner, he works full time, except that he did not work in the
month of March 1969; from mid-February until April 24,
1970; from January 1 to June 4, 1971, when he was unable
to work due to a broken leg; and from January 1 through
May 5, 1972. All such time off, except when Wachsman had
the broken leg, was to enable him to spend time in Florida.
Thus, according to Respondent, the compliment of the
warehouse unit was 17(the 16 warehousemen on the payroll
plus Wachsman).
I find it unnecessary to decide whether Ferrero or Wachs-
man is properly in the unit. Assuming arguendo that both
Ferrero and Wachsman should both be included, as I find
and set forth more fully hereafter, and that DeJesus, Hale,
Parris, and Rios were regular full-time employees, it follows
that the Union had 10 cards in a unit of 17 employees, a
clear majority. I so find and conclude.10
d. The Union demands recognition
On the morning of March 20, Union Agents Van Delft
and Tate went to Respondent' s premises , where they first
talked with employee Thomas at the receiving dock. Van
Delft gave Thomas a supply of union buttons and told the
latter to see that each card signer put one on and after
waiting about 10 minutes to give Van Delft and Tate time
to get into Respondent's office, all 10 of the card signers
should join Van Delft and Tate in the office. Thomas distri-
buted the union buttons as directed, and each card signer
put one on. Van Delft and Tate immediately went to the
office where they met with Company President Schattner."
At this time Van Delft told Schattner that the Union
9 The 16 warehousemen on the payroll are: James Matthews, Wilfredo
Rivera, Dink Thomas, Allen Nottingham , Charles Ferrero, Frederick Mars,
Harry Wilson, LeRoy Tomkins, Nathaniel Nesbit , Nelson Navarro, Jose
Fernendez, and Ronney Bailey.
10 The General Counsel concedes that , if the four employees are found to
be temporary employees , the Union never had majority status.
ii For some reason not fully developed in the record , the employees did
not come to Schattner's office on this occasion . Although, through the glass
represented a majority of the warehouse employees and
demanded recognition and bargaining.12 As indicated Van
Delft presented Schattner with a recognition agreement,
and a form contract asking that the recognition agreement
be signed promptly and an early date fixed to commence
bargaining. Schattner expressed surprise at Van Delft's
claim that the Union represented a majority of the ware-
house employees and asked "who joined the Union?" Van
Delft replied, the men who worked in the warehouse, two-
thirds of them as a matter of fact, and, according to Schatt-
ner, added that the ones who had joined the Union were
those who were wearing the union buttons out in the plant.
Additionally, Van Delft offered to call the employees who
had signed cards to Schattner's office so that he could see
them, but Schattner declined the offer. Schattner told Van
Delft that he wished to study the documents Van Delft had
presented, and consult counsel with whom he would be
unable to communicate for about a week. Van Delft was
agreeable to Schattner studying the documents but protest-
ed a delay of a week, and stated that he would return on
Wednesday (March 22), for Schattner's answer. Addition-
ally, Van Delft told Schattner that the "law" prohibited him
from discharging or otherwise harassing employees be-
cause of their union activity. Schattner replied that he had
no intention of doing so. On this note the meeting conclud-
ed.
Immediately following his meeting with Van Delft and
Tate, Schattner went to the office and picked up Raymond,
who testified as heretofore set forth, that Schattner told him
that the people he had been talking to in his office were from
the Union, and that the men in the "back" had organized.
Schattner and Raymond then went into the warehouse
area .13 Schattner admitted that in going through the ware-
house area , he observed 10 warehouse employees wearing
union buttons. Although Schattner and Raymond both tes-
tified that in going through the warehouse they did not
speak to any of the employees, I find on the basis of the
testimony of the employees involved, that the following
incidents occurred on March 20 upon which the General
Counsel bases his allegations of:
partitions , they could see Van Delft and Tate in the office, they could not
hear what was said
12 Respondent argues that Van Delft's demand was in fact not limited to
the warehousemen , but extended to all employees, which would include the
office clericals. But even Respondent's testimony does not support that posi-
tion. Schattner testified that Van Delft told him that the Union had organized
"the rear " Because the office staff and the warehouse were physically located
behind Schattner 's office, and because of the recognition agreement and the
form contract hereafter mentioned which Van Delft left with Schattner, the
latter claims that Van Delft's demand for recognition was in a unit of all
employees. The documents referred to in describing the unit did refer to "all
employees ," but Van Delft credibly testified that these documents were
printed up in advance by the Union in large quantities and were not intended
as defining the unit for which he was demanding recognition Although
Schattner denied the fact, General Manager Raymond testified that when
Schattner concluded his conference with Van Delft and Tate, he came into
the office area and stated "that the men in the back had organized a union,"
and according to Raymond's pretrial affidavit , Schattner also stated that the
union representatives had told him that he could go in the back and count
the union buttons Because of the conflict between Schattner and Raymond
in certain aspects of their testimony, and Schattner's statements to Raymond,
I credit Van Delft that he limited his demand to unit of warehousemen.
13 The testimony of Schattner and Raymond that before going into the
warehouse they looked about the office force to see who might be wearing
union buttons but saw none, I do not credit because it is inconsistent with
their other conduct, and no more than an afterthought.
764
his allegations of:
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
e. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Schattner entered the warehouse area hollering for
Rivera. When Rivera raised up from his work, Schattner
looked at the union button Rivera was wearing and said,
"you too"? Rivera responded, "yes everybody." Schattner
asked, "Who is everybody"? Rivera replied, "everybody but
Nat, LeRoy and Jimmie.""' Schattner then went to Rios
who was assisting Rivera, and looking at the union button
Rios was wearing, said, "you too." Rios just smiled, but said
nothing. Shortly thereafter, Raymond approached Rivera
and asked what benefits he expected to get from the Union.
Rivera replied that he would get 2 weeks' vacation instead
of one, and $120 a week pay instead of $95. Raymond told
Rivera to be careful, that unions promise lots of things they
are unable to deliver. Rivera replied that anything he got
would be better than what he had. The following morning
Raymond again talked with Rivera telling the latter that
Respondent would take care of all the employees if they
would forget about the Union. Rivera replied that he had
started with the Union and would continue with it to the
end. Later that day Raymond approached Rivera at his
work station, saying that $120 weekly salary he wanted was
too much, but thought he could arrange for $110. Rivera
rejected this, saying that for that amount it was not worth
his effort to try to get the Union in.'5
2. Raymond approached employees Wilson and Thom-
as, who were standing together , and addressing himself to
Thomas said, "Dink, what is this, if you wanted a union why
didn't you come to me, I would have gotten you a union."
A short time later Schattner passed by where Thomas and
Wilson were standing, both wearing union buttons, and
looking at them shook his head, but said nothing.16
3. Also on March 20, Carl Ferrero, accompanied by
Schattner and James (Vinnie) Police," approached employ-
ee Lennox Parris, with Ferrero asking, "Lennox, you in this
too?" Parris answered that he was and turned the button he
was wearing toward Ferrero.18
4. Employee Navarro saw Schattner in the warehouse
area going among the employees observing who was wear-
ing a union button. Schattner looked at Navarro but made
no comment. While Schattner was going through the area,
Supervisor Police talked with Navarro asking the latter, why
he had done it, and why didn't he come to Police with any
problems he had. Navarro replied that his problem con-
cerned benefits and salary. Police made no reply.19
14 The payroll record in evidence, hereafter referred to, shows these to be
warehouse employees.
13 Based on the credited testimony of Rivera . The contradictory testimony
of Raymond, I do not credit . The record shows that at the time of the trial
Rios was deceased.
16 Based on the credited testimony of Thomas and Wilson . As indicated,
both Raymond and Schattner denied that they engaged in such conduct, but
I do not credit their denial.
17 Police is an admitted supervisor ; but the agency status of Ferrero is
denied . The issue will be hereafter treated with.
18 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Parris Neither
Ferrero nor Police testified . Schattner, when he testified , did not refer to this
incident.
19 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of Navarro As
5. In the warehouse Schattner, accompanied by Ferrero,
passed employee DeJesus who was at work and wearing a
union button. As they passed, Schattner said to Ferrero,
"He is in it too?" Ferrero shrugged his shoulders but no
comment was made.20
6. Also, Schattner, accompanied by Police, talked to em-
ployee Fernendez, who was wearing a union button, and
asked the latter, "Are you in the Union?" Fernendez replied
in the affirmative?'
Based on Van Delft's testimony regarding the events oc-
curring at this March 20 meeting, and Respondent's con-
duct in the warehouse immediately following that meeting,
I find and conclude that on that date Van Delft made de-
mand on Schattner for recognition and bargaining in the
warehouse unit, consisting of all warehouse employees, in-
cluding shipping and receiving employees, but excluding
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act, which the parties
have stipulated to be appropriate.
Although I have found that Van Delft limited his demand
as above indicated, I would find an appropriate demand in
that unit even were I to conclude that in demanding recog-
nition Van Delft used the term "all employees." It is true,
of course, that to impose a bargaining duty upon an employ-
er, the Union's demand must "clearly define the unit for
which recognition is sought" (The C. L. Bailey Grocery Co.,
100 NLRB 576, 579). But in matters of labor relations, as
in many other matters, no special formula or form of words
is required. The important question is does the employer
understand that he is being asked to bargain and what
employees he is being asked to bargain for. (Benson Whole-
sale Company, Inc., 164 NLRB 536, 550-551). Schattner's
conduct in interrogating the warehouse employees imme-
diately following the demand upon him, completely ignor-
ing the office clericals, makes it plain that he fully under-
stand what employees he was being asked to bargain for.
But assuming , arguendo, that some confusion remained in
Schattner's mind as to what employees he was being asked
to bargain for, a simple imquiry of Van Delft, which good
faith would seem to require, would have clarified any confu-
sion that may have existed. Benson Wholesale Company,
Inc., supra at 551. Instead , Respondent chose to ignore the
Union's continuing recognition demand. A permissible in-
ference from the facts-and the inference which I draw-is
that the alleged defect or ambiguity in the Union's demand
was not the motivating reason for Respondent's refusal to
bargain, but that such reason was its determination to reject
any bargaining demand the Union made regardless of the
precision with which it may have been formulated and com-
municated. Respondent's efforts to undermine and destroy
the Union's majority in the unit that it knew the Union's
support lay makes this abundantly clear.
I. Van Delft and Schattner meet again
On March 22, Van Delft again talked with Schattner in
the latter's office. The meeting opened with Van Delft ask-
indicated Police did not testify.
20 Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of DeJesus.
21 Based on the credited testimony of Fernendez.
ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 765
ing Schattner if he had been in touch with his attorney.
Schattner stated that he had not, because his attorney was
still out of town. Thereupon the entire group of 10 employ-
ees that signed cards entered the office.22 As they entered,
Schattner asked why the men were present. Van Delft re-
plied that their presence was meant to demonstrate that the
men were not interested in accepting the offers he had made
to them, and that they wanted the Union to represent them.
Van Delft then told Schattner that he had information that
the latter had interrogated and otherwise interfered with
employees, and that this had to stop. Van Delft then had
Rivera repeat Raymond's offer to pay him $110 a week, a
statement which Raymond denied. Van Delft then stated
that he was willing to acceed to Schattner's request to wait
until Monday, to give him time to confer with counsel, but
that this had to be on the basis that Respondent would no
longer interfere with the employees. Schattner denied that
he had done so, and on this note the meeting concluded.
g. Four employees are discharged
On Friday afternoon, March 24, employees Victor De-
Jesus, Anthony Hale, Lennox Parris, and Robert Rios were
admittedly discharged by Respondent. Respondent's de-
fense to these discharges is that all four were hired as tempo-
rary employees only for the specific job of putting the books
in order following the move, and that upon completion of
that work there was no further need for their service (which
facts are crucial on the issue of the Union's majority), it is
necessary to set out the circumstances under which each
was hired and worked; having heretofore found that a sub-
stantial volume of work occasioned by the move remained
to be performed at the time the four men were discharged.
(1) DeJesus
DeJesus was originally employed by Respondent in Au-
gust 1971. At some point in time not entirely clear from the
record , DeJesus became ill and after that considered himself
no longer employed by Respondent. On December 17,197 1,
he returned to the plant seeking work. He spoke with Ferre-
ro who told him to go to work arranging the paperbacks on
the shelves , and that his salary would be $75 a week. Noth-
ing was said to him to indicate that his employment was of
a temporary nature, or limited by any particular event.
Whether Ferrero discussed the hire of DeJesus with any
other member of management, DeJesus was unaware, and
the record does not show . After being hired by Ferrero,
DeJesus went to Raymond where he completed the papers
incident to his rehire. Raymond admitted that on this occa-
sion he said nothing to DeJesus from which the latter might
conclude that his employment was temporary . At some time
not fixed in the record , DeJesus spoke to Ferrero about a
raise in pay. Ferrero replied that he would see what he could
do. Several days later Ferrero told DeJesus that he had been
given a $5 raise, which became effective March 20, which
is the Monday following the end of the week Schattner
determined , according to his testimony, that the task of
22 Van Delft had spoken to the employees earlier in the morning and their
action in this regard was pursuant to his request
straightening out the stock would be completed by March
24, and that the services of DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios
would no longer be needed.23
(2) Lennox Parris and Anthony Hale
The parties stipulated that Parris was hired on February
7. He was sent to Respondent by an employment agency
pursuant to a call from Raymond, who interviewed and
hired Parris. Parris testified that nothing was said to him
relating to whether the job was permanent or temporary. 24
Raymond admitted he hired Hale on February 7, after in-
terviewing him and that he was assigned to straighten out
books in the textbook section.25
(3) Robert Rios
As above indicated, Rios was deceased at the time of the
trial, hence we do not have the benefit of his testimony.
Schattner admitted that Rios was hired March 14. Although
Schattner claimed that Rivera, who had recommended Rios
for hire because he needed assistance in the textbook sec-
tion, told Rios that the job would be temporary, Rivera does
not bear this out. Hence there is no testimony in this record
that Rios was told that his employment would be tempo-
rary.26
When DeJesus, Parris, Hale, and Rios were laid off at the
end of the day on March 24, the reason given them for the
layoff was that there was no further work available. Al-
though Respondent's business is seasonal, with the slow
season extending from mid-October to the latter part of the
following June,2 at which time employment is reduced, and
notwithstanding Schattner's claim that the employment of
DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios would have been unneces-
sary except for the failure of the movers to comply with their
contract to put the books in proper order, the warehouse
23 Based on the credited testimony of DeJesus . Schattner testified , that he
did not talk with DeJesus, but told Ferrero to have him come in, and that
Raymond would hire him. He claimed to have done this because the stock
was in bad shape and he needed additional help made necessary by the move
to the new location . In this connection it should be noted that at the time
DeJesus was hired , Schattner had not yet become aware that the mover
would not comply with his contract to put the books in order. Although
Schattner testified that all four of the men were told that their jobs were
temporary , he admitted that he did not speak to any of them. Raymond
testified that he was told by Schattner that the latter had hired DeJesus to
help straighten out the paperbacks, and brought DeJesus to him and that he
(Raymond) just filled out the necessary paper On cross- examination he
claimed that Schattner simply told him to put DeJesus on the payroll. Al-
though Raymond testified that it was his uniform practice to tell new hires
that they were being hired as temporary employees, and that he did so on
each of the occasions here involved, his pretrial affidavit, dated May 12, less
than 2 months after the men were laid off, states that he could not recall if
he so informed Hale or DeJesus To the extent that the testimony of Schatt-
ner and Raymond conflicts with that of DeJesus, I credit the latter.
24 Based on the credited testimony of Parris . In view of Raymond's affida-
vit, referred to above, I do not credit his testimony that he told Parris that
his employment would be temporary
25 Based on the stipulations of counsel and the admissions of Raymond,
without crediting , however, Raymond 's claim that he told Hale that his
employment would be temporary.
As above indicated , Schattner admitted that he did not so inform any
employee
During this period employees, in addition to making some current ship-
ments, make any needed repairs on books and put the books in proper order
in preparation for issuance of an annual catalogue.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment in March 1972, prior to the layoff, was sub-
stantially the same as in 1971, and after the layoff employ-
ment in 1972 was reduced just about the amount of the
number of employees laid off.28
As DeJesus was leaving the premises on March 24, after
having been laid off, Ferrero told DeJesus not to worry, that
if the Union failed he (Ferrero) would do what he could to
get DeJesus his fob back.29
h. Van Delft and Schaffner have final meeting
Van Delft and Schattner met again on Monday, March
27. Van Delft, having learned the previous Friday evening
about the layoff of the four men , returned to Schattner's
office and asked if the latter had yet communicated with his
counsel . In response Schattner gave Van Delft the name and
telephone number of one Hyman Isaacs , a management
consultant, and stated that anything further Van Delft had
to discuss with management should be taken up with Isaacs.
Van Delft then asked if Schattner was aware that four men
had been laid off. Schattner said he was, and added that
when he has no work for the people he lays them off. Van
Delft asked if when business improved , would the men be
called back. Schattner replied in the negative , saying that
the men had been laid off permanently. Van Delft then
asked if some of the present employees left, would the laid-
off employees be recalled in order of seniority . Schattner
again replied in the negative and saying the layoff was per-
manent . The meeting then concluded with Van Delft telling
Schattner that he would call Isaacs , but warning that there
would be serious problems unless the four men were rein-
stated 30
Following this last conversation between Schattner and
Van Delft, the latter telephoned Isaacs . Though most of the
discussion between them I deem irrelevant to any issue in
the case,31 it is sufficient to point out that on behalf of
Respondent Isaacs denied recognition on the ground that
he doubted the Union's majority and told Van Delft that if
he wished to pursue the matter further , he would have to do
so through the Board ; that Van Delft thereupon threatened
to strike, and Isaacs told him to do what he wished. 32 Since
these conversations , there has been no further communica-
tion between the parties.
u This is illustrated in the table attached hereto as Appendix B
29 Based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony of DeJesus, which
is in substance corroborated by Pains Ferrero , though identified as present
at trial , was not called as a witness In these circumstances it may appropri-
ately be inferred , as I do , that his testimony would not support Respondent's
position. Interstate Circuit, v. United States, 306 U .S 208, 225-226 ( 1939);
Brewton Fashions, 145 NLRB 99, 124, fn 77 , and the cases there cited
30 Based on the credited testimony of Van Delft which Schattner did not
contradict
31 Van Delft testified that in his talk with Isaacs he asked for recognition
in a unit of warehousemen , and that Isaacs acknowledged that the Union had
a majority in that unit Isaacs denied that Van Delft mentioned any particu-
lar unit, or that he admitted the Union's majority I deem it unnecessary to
resolve that conflict because the case can be decided on the basis of the
conversations between Van Delft and Schattner, and the latter 's actions
based thereon.
32 With respect to these matters , there is no dispute in the testimony of Van
Delft and Isaacs.
i. Further interference, restraint, and coercion
Shortly after Van Delft's conversation with Isaacs, em-
ployee Thomas rcceived word that he was wanted in the
office. Arriving there, Thomas found Raymond and Schatt-
ner. The latter opened the conversation by referring to the
union campaign, and stated that he thought there was going
to be a strike, and that he would appreciate it if Thomas and
Wilson would not go out with the others; that he would take
his chances legally with the four men that had been laid off;
and that Thomas need not concern himself with Rivera,
Femendez, and Navarro, because "they were on their way
out." At this point Raymond added, "they are going to fall
flat on their faces." Schattner urged Thomas to think about
it, and Thomas agreed to do so.33
j. The employees strike
On April 10, certain warehouse employees of Respondent
went on strike.34 Those who struck were 9 of the 10 card
signers , and I of those abandoned the strike after about a
week. The strike lasted about 14 weeks.35 Before going on
strike the employee card signers met with Van Delft who
explained to them the status of his efforts to secure recogni-
tion from Respondent, and the fact that four employees had
been discharged for what he regarded as discriminatory
reasons . The employees then voted to strike. The reason for
the strike, as one employee explained it, was " . . . we have
need to fight for those four guys . . . Schattner let off, and
... this only way we can show Mr. Schattner we want the
Union." By letter dated May 12, Respondent notified De-
Jesus, Hale, Parris, and Rios that there was a job available
for them in the warehouse and to advise Respondent if they
were interested. The record does not indicate what reply, if
any, the employees made to this letter. Also by letter dated
July 5, the Union wrote Respondent calling off the strike
unconditionally, and demanding that all the employees be
recalled to work. By letter dated July 11, and sent to each
of the strikers, including four alleged discriminatees, Re-
spondent offered reinstatement to each of them, which rein-
statement was accepted by all but one, and they were
returned to work.36
33 Based on the credited testimony of Thomas . Both Schattner and Ray-
mond denied making such statements , but I do not credit their denial.
34 April 10 is the date testified to by Schattner as the start of the strike.
Thomas, the only other witness who testified as to the date , said the strike
began in March or May, he didn 't remember which. It is obvious that Thom-
as was testifying from memory and that in this area his memory was not
accurate
35 The employee who did not join the strike was James Mars, and James
Wilson abandoned it after about a week All the remainder strikers picketed
at one time or another during the strike
36 Employee Navarro, who participated in the strike that began on April
10, testified that he did not receive an offer of reinstatement and was not
reinstated At first the General Counsel urged this as a violation of the Act,
but subsequently abandoned that contention . Additionally , it appears that
two of the four employees alleged in this proceeding to have been discharged
in violation of Sec . 8(a)(3) were, after being recalled, discharged again, and
this was made the basis of another charge filed with the Board, alleging
violations of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act. No complaint issued on that charge as
it was withdrawn with the approval of the Regional Director
ADAMS BOOK COMPANY 767
B. Contentions and Conclusions
Upon the facts as herein set forth, I find and conclude
that Respondent violated the Act in the following respects:
1. The 8(a)(1) violations
1. The interrogation of employees Wilson, Thomas, Riv-
era, Rios, Parris, Navarro, Fernendez, and DeJesus by
Schattner, Raymond, Police, and Ferrero, on March 20, as
detailed above. This interrogation was conducted in the
main by Respondent 's highest officials and without assur-
ances against reprisal. Indeed to the employees, the dis-
charge of DeJesus, Parris, Rios, and Hale just 4 days later,
was potent evidence that Respondent intended to and did
retaliate against them for their union activity, and that the
interrogation was not solely for the purpose of ascertaining
whether Respondent had an obligation to bargain with the
Union. Cf. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.17
2. Raymond's statements to Rivera that the employees
would be taken care of if they would forget about the
Union, and offering Rivera increased salary for the same
purpose. In each case Raymond's statement was plainly
interference with the Section 7 rights of the employees, and
a promise of benefit if the employees would refrain from
exercising those rights.
3. Schattner's statement to Thomas that a strike was an-
ticipated and that he would appreciate it if Thomas and his
fellow employee Wilson would not go on strike, and that he
(Schattner) would take his chances legally with the four men
that were discharged on March 24, as well as his statement
at the same time, that employees Rivera, Fernendez, and
Navarro were on their way out. This was not only an at-
tempt to interfere with the protected rights of Thomas and
Wilson, but a threat to discharge employees because of their
activity on behalf of the Union.
4. Ferrero's statement to DeJesus on the day the latter
was discharged, that if the Union failed he (Ferrero) would
do what he could to get DeJesus his job back. This also was
a promise of benefit to induce employees to refrain from
exercising protected statutory rights.
2. The 8(a)(3) violations
I further find and conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act by discharging DeJesus,
Hale, Parris , and Rios on March 24. To begin with, upon
consideration of the entire record I am convinced, and
therefore find and conclude that those employees were reg-
ular full-time employees , and not temporary employees, as
Respondent contends . I so conclude because of the com-
plete absence of any credible evidence that any of the em-
ployees were told that they were hired for a temporary
77 In reaching this conclusion I find it unnecessary to consider whether
Ferrero was in fact a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The evidence
shows that when he engaged in the activity referred to he was always accom-
panied by Schattner or Police , both admitted supervisors , neither of whom
took any steps to retract what Ferrero said or did, or to inform the employees
that Ferrero was without authority to speak for Respondent . In these circum-
stances the employees were warranted in assuming that Ferrero spoke for
management.
period; the fact that employment during the relevant por-
tions of 1971 and 1972 was relatively the same, and when
the four were discharged the level of employment for 1972
fell below what was normal employment for the period in
1971; and finally it is inconceivable that Schattner would
have hired Rios as a temporary employee on March 14, if
as Schattner claimed, the event that would necessitate ter-
mination of temporary employees had or was about to ar-
rive.
Having concluded that DeJesus, Hale, Parris and Rios
were permanent employees, I have no hesitance in finding
and concluding, as I do, that their termination on March 24,
was discriminatorily motivated. The timing of the discharg-
es hard upon discovery that the men had assisted and sup-
ported a union which was now demanding recognition; the
absence of any contention or credible evidence that they
were discharged for cause; and the fact, as I have found,
that a false reason was given for the discharges, demon-
strates that the discharges were discriminatorily motivated.
As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated the
principle in Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B.,
362 F.2d 466, 470 (1966):
If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for
a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is
another motive. More than that, he can infer that the
motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an
unlawful motive-at least where, as in the instant case,
the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that DeJesus, Hale,
Parris, and Rios were discriminatorily discharged, and I
shall recommend an appropriate remedy.
3. The 8(a)(5) allegations
The parties having stipulated that the warehouse unit
pleaded in the complaint is appropriate, and having hereto-
fore found that on March 20, the Union was the duly desig-
nated majority representative of the employees in that unit,
and that on that date it made proper demand on Respon-
dent for recognition and bargaining, the only remaining
question is whether, under all the circumstances, Respon-
dent should be directed to bargain with the Union. The
answer to that question, in my opinion, is governed by the
Board's very recent decision in Green Briar Nursing Home,
Inc., 201 NLRB No. 73. There the Board stated:
In Linden Lumber [190 NLRB No. 116] and our later
decision in Sullivan Electric Company, 199 NLRB No.
97, we made it clear that an employee will not be found
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act solely upon the
basis of his refusal to accept union-proffered evidence
of majority status other than the results of a Board
election, unless his conduct precluded resort to an elec-
tion. In those cases we pointed out that an election will
be precluded by substantial employer misconduct in
violation of the Act, by an employer's action in agree-
ing upon another method of ascertaining whether a
union majority existed, or by an employer's conduct of
a poll of employees which establishes the existence of
a majority.
I find and conclude that all three of the tests were met here.
At the meeting on March 20, when the Union demanded
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognition, Schattner asked what employees had joined the in the case, I state the following:
Union. Van Delft replied that if Schattner would go into the
plant he could count the employees who were wearing union
buttons. This was plainly an offer by the Union of a method
whereby Schattner could satisfy himself of the Union's ma-
jority status, and by going into the plant for the purpose of
finding out who was wearing union buttons , he accepted the
Union 's offer . Having so agreed , Respondent should not
now be permitted to "disclaim the results [of his inquiry]
simply because it finds them distasteful ." (Sullivan Electric
Company, supra.) Schattner's interrogation of the employees
on March 20 also constituted a poll within the meaning of
Green Briar Nursing Homes, supra. Of the 17 employees in
the unit (assuming that Ferrero and Wachsman were prop-
erly regarded as in the unit), 8 were polled concerning their
sympathy for and support of the Union. Not only did each
polled employee state his support of the Union , but Rivera
told Schattner that all but three of the employees were of
that view . Based on the information thus given him, and the
fact that he admittedly observed 10 employees wearing
union buttons , it is reasonable to infer, as I do , that he was
satisfied that the Union represented a majority of the ware-
house employees. This is confirmed by the fact that Schatt-
ner, just 4 days later , in order , as I have found , to destroy
that majority, discharged four employees. Finally I find and
conclude that Respondent's unfair labor practices herein
found, particularly the discharges of DeJesus, Hale, Parris,
and Rios, were of such a grievous and pervasive character
as to make the holding of a fair election extremely doubtful,
and therefore a bargaining order here is appropriate, not-
withstanding the absence of a Board conducted election,
under the standards set forth in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575,610,614-615 (1969). There the Court
specifically held that a bargaining order is proper "where an
employer has committed independent unfair labor practices
which have made the holding of a fair election unlikely or
which have in fact undermined a union 's majority ... ,"
and that in such cases were the Board to "enter only a
cease-and-desist order and direct an election . . . it would
in effect be rewarding the employer and allowing him 'to
profit from [his] own wrongful refusal to bargain ."' Finally,
and by way of summarizing its holding, the Court stated
where "the possibility of erasing the effects of past [unfair
labor] practices and of ensuring a fair election . . . is slight
and that employee sentiment once expressed through cards
would , on balance , be better protected by a bargaining or-
der, then such an order should issue ." (395 U.S. 575,
614-615).38
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , and the entire record
31 It may be noted at this point, that where a bargaining order issues under
the Gusel standards because of substantial employer misconduct in violation
of the Act, it is immatenal just what Van Delft said to Schattner in making
demand for recognition, or indeed that he made any demand at all . In such
cases, if the union 's majority in some appropriate unit is established, bargain-
ing is ordered, as above pointed out, to prevent the employer from reaping
the benefits of his own misconduct , and is granted even though a violation
of Sec . 8(aX5) of the Act has not been established , i.e., a complete lack of
any demand for bargaining . See D H Holmes Company, Ltd v N L R B,
179 F.2d 876, 879 (C.A. 5); Piaseckt Aircraft Corporation v. N L R B, 280
F.2d 575, 591 (C.A 3), cert denied 364 U.S. 933; N LR B v. FlastafJDistri-
buting Company, 209 F.2d 265, 268 (C A. 8), Graystone Knitwear Corp, et al,
136 NLRB 573, 575
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section I, B, 1 hereof,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. By discharging Victor DeJesus, Anthony Hale, Len-
nox Parris, and Robert Rios on March 24, because of their
assistance to and support of the Union, Respondent dis-
criminated against each of them in regard to their hire,
tenure of employment, or the terms and conditions thereof,
discouraging membership in a labor organization, and
thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. On March 20, the Union was, and at all times since has
been, the duly designated collective-bargaining representa-
tive of Respondent's employees in a unit of warehouse em-
ployees, including shipping and receiving employees, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. On or about March 20, the Union demanded, and at
all times since has continued to demand, that Respondent
recognize and bargain with it as the duly designated collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit.
7. By refusing on March 20, and at all times thereafter,
to recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the aforemen-
tioned unit , Respondent engaged in , and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, it
will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist
therefrom and to take the affirmative action, set forth be-
low, designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that Respondent interfered with, coerced,
and restrained its employees in the exercise of their guaran-
teed Section 7 rights; discriminatorily discharged DeJesus,
Hale, Parris, and Rios; and refused to bargain with the
Union, I conclude from the totality of that unlawful con-
duct that a broad order is appropriate, and that Respondent
should be required to cease and desist from in any manner
ADAMS BOOK COMPANY
interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Adt.
N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4); Cali-
fornia Lingerie, Inc., 129 NLRB 912, 915.
It will also be recommended that Respondent be required
to make whole DeJesus , Hale, Parris , and Rios for any loss
of earnings suffered by paying to each of them , respectively,
a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned
as wages from March 24, the date of his discharge, to May
17, when Respondent offered each of them reinstatement,39
less any amount earned during said period . Such backpay
shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum , as provided in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716. Reinstatement
having been previously offered said employees , I do not
recommend that another offer be required . Additionally it
will be recommended that Respondent be required to pre-
serve and , upon , request, make available to authorized
agents of the Board , all records necessary or useful in de-
termining compliance with the Board 's Order herein, or in
computing the amount of backpay due.
Having also found that Respondent on March 20, and at
all times thereafter failed and refused , in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act, to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the duly designated exclusive collective -bargain-
ing agent of its employees in the unit herein found appropri-
ate, and that independently of such violation , a bargaining
order is necessary to prevent Respondent from profiting
from its own unlawful conduct , it will be recommended that
Respondent , upon request , bargain with the Union as such
representative , concerning the wages, hours , and terms and
conditions of employment of the employees in said unit, and
if an understanding is reached embody the same in a written
signed agreement.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act , I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:40
39 By letters dated May 12, Respondent offered DeJesus, Hale, Parris, and
Rios reinstatement . It was stipulated that the letters were received by Parris
and DeJesus on May 17. The letters to Hale and Rios, though sent to their
last-known addresses , were returned to Respondent undelivered . The reason
for such undelivery is not disclosed by the record. Because I regard the offers
to Parris and DeJesus as made when they were received, and there is no
explanation in the record as to why the letters were not or could not be
delivered to Hale and Rios, I recommend that back pay for them also be
terminated as of May 17 As there is a complete absence of evidence to
establish that the offers of reinstatement dated May 12, were for any reason
ineffective, I find and conclude that they were sufficient to terminate the
running of backpay. There is no evidence to show what action , if any, the
employees took with respect to the aforesaid offers The record additionally
shows that by letter dated July 5 the Union wrote Respondent making an
unconditional request that eight employees be returned to work, specifically
naming , inter alia, DeJesus, Hale, Parris , and Rios. On July 11, Respondent
advised the Union that the named employees would be returned to work
immediately , and this was done . As the record shows that the strike , assuming
that it was an unfair labor practice strike , has been terminated unconditional-
ly, and the unfair labor practice strikers , assuming that they were such, who
applied have been reinstated , a protective order usually entered in such
situations , is unnecessary.
40 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
ORDER
769
Respondent Adams Book Company, Inc., Brooklyn, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees with respect to
their sympathies for or assistance to any labor organization.
(b) Coercively interrogating any employee as to whether
he has acquired membership in any labor organization, or
authorized any labor organization to act as his collective-
bargaining representative.
(c) Promising employees benefits if they would cease as-
sisting or supporting a labor organization.
(d) Threatening to discharge employees because they as-
sist or support a labor organization.
(e) Promising to return any employee to employee status
if an organizational campaign conducted by a labor organi-
zation fails.
(f) Encouraging or discouraging membership in District
65, National Council of Distributive Workers of America,
or any other labor organization of its employees, by discri-
minatorily discharging, or in any other manner discriminat-
ing against any employee in regard to his hire, tenure, or any
term or condition of employment.
(g) Refusing, on request, to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit composed of all its warehouse employees , including
receiving and shipping employees, but excluding office cler-
ical employees, guards, professional employees , and all su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the aforesaid
labor organization as the exclusive collective- bargaining
representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the same in a signed written
agreement.
(b) Make whole Victor DeJesus, Anthony Hale, Lennox
Parris, and Robert Rios for any loss of earnings suffered in
the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to author-
ized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary or useful in determining
compliance with this order or in computing the amount of
backpay due.
(d) Post at its premises in Brooklyn, New York, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 41 Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Board's Regional Director,
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
41 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 29 (Brooklyn , New York), shall, after being signed
by an authorized representative , be posted as herein provid-
ed immediately upon receipt thereof, and be so maintained
for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
As the National Labor Relations Board found that
we violated the law when we fired Victor DeJesus,
Anthony Hale, Lennox Parris , and Robert Rios, WE
WILL make up to them the pay each of them lost, with
6-percent interests.
Dated By
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence , the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we, Adams Book Company, Inc., violated
the National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post
this notice . We will carry out the Order of the Board, the
judgment of any court enforcing the same , and comply with
the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form , join, or help unions
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with you in the
exercise of the aforementioned rights , and all our em-
ployees are free to become or remain a member of
District 65 , or not to become or remain a member of
that or any other union.
WE WILL NOT question you about your sympathies for
or activities on behalf of District 65, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT question you as to whether you have
signed a card for any union.
WE WILL NOT promise you benefits to induce you to
withdraw your support from a union.
WE WILL NOT discharge or threaten to discharge any
employee because he has assisted or supported a union,
or promise to reinstate them if the Union 's campaign
fails.
WE WILL , upon request , bargain collectively with Dis-
trict 65, as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen-
tative of our employees in an appropriate unit
composed of all warehouse employees , including re-
ceiving and shipping employees , but excluding office
clerical employees , guards , professional employees,
and supervisors , as defined in the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached reduce the same to a
signed written agreement.
ADAMS BOOK COMPANY, INC
(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 , 16 Court Street , Fourth Floor,
Brooklyn , New York 11241 , Telephone 212-596-3535.
APPENDIX B
1971
Week Ending
Warehouse
Employees
2-12 13
2-19 14
2-26 15
3-5 14
3-12 16
3-19 16
3-26 16
4-2 15
4-8 15
1972
Week Ending
Warehouse
Employees
2-11 16
2-18 15
2-25 15
3-3 16
3-10 16
3-17 16
3-24 16
3-31 12
4-6 12