Al Tatti, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 167 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

AL TATTI, INCORPORATED 167
other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of our discrimination against him.
WE WILL make whole Charles Williams for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of our discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or reprisals for engaging
in union activity.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form, join, or
assist any labor organization , to join or assist the above-named Union, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
ATLANTIC FuRNrruan PRODUCTS CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------ ------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office (707 North
Calvert Street, Baltimore 2, Maryland; Telephone Number, Plaza 2-8460) if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Al Tatti , Incorporated and International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-4472. Marcia 9, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 29, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy is-
sued his Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Intermediate Report.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record. The Board affirms the Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings and adopts his findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations, as modified herein.
The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1),
(3) , and (5) by unlawfully interrogating and threatening its em-
ployees over their interest in the Union, by discriminatorily discharg-
ing employees Werner Berg and George Filbig, and by refusing to
recognize the Union as exclusive representative of its shop employees
136 NLRB No. 17.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
even though it had no good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
status.
Respondent is engaged in the sale and servicing of Volkswagen
automobiles in Downey, California. The employees involved here are
employed in its service shop. Early in 1961, Berg and Filbig began
speaking to their fellow shop employees about joining a union. Some
months later, at a union meeting, 7 out of a maximum of 11 employees
in the shop signed authorization cards on behalf of the Charging
Union, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. On
June 19, the TAM wrote the Respondent that it represented a major-
ity of its shop employees and requested a bargaining meeting. The
letter was received the next day by Clarence McCall, who was tem-
porarily in charge of Respondent's operations while its president, Al
Tatti, was away on an extended vacation. McCall referred the letter
to a labor-management consultant, but no answer was given the
Union. On June 21, the TAM filed a Board petition for an election
among the shop employees. Al Tatti returned from his vacation on
or about July 15 and, on July 18, Berg and Filbig were discharged.
The following Monday, Berg and Filbig reported to the shop in re-
sponse to Supervisor Lauer's request to do so, and were to] d by Tatti
that they could return to work if they would sign a paper stating that
they had been fired for drinking beer on the job and if they waived
the backpay which they had lost. They refused to return under these
conditions, but resumed their employment for Respondent the follow-
ing day, after Tatti informed them that they could return without
any stipulations on their part.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the threats by Respond-
ent set out in the Intermediate Report constitute violations of Section
8(a) (1). We also agree that the interrogations by Respondent set
out 'in the Intermediate Report constitute violations of Section 8(a)
(1) in the context of the aforementioned threats and Respondent's
other unfair labor practices to be discussed infra. All but one of
these instances of interrogation occurred after the discharge of Berg
and Filbig. We find that they establish Respondent's opposition to
recognition of the Union's majority status.' Lauer's inquiry of Berg
on June 30, 1961, as to why the employees were joining the Union,
and his further remark that the Union would do the employees no
good, also indicate Respondent's antiunion motivation in discharging
Berg and Filbig.
2. The record clearly indicates that Berg and Filbig were the in-
stigators of the Union's campaign among the shop employees. We
' Before the 6-month period preceding the filing of the charge herein Supervisor Meeks,
during the course of a meeting of the shop employees answered Berg's query as to why
Respondent paid its mechanics on a commission basis by saying that it was to keep waee
standards up and keen the union out We rely on this statement only as it reveals the
Respondent's opposition to having a union represent its employees.
AL TATTI, INCORPORATED 169
find that Respondent was aware of their activities in view of Super-
visor Meeks' statement to an employee who had just returned from
vacation that, during his absence, two employees who had been trying
to form a union had been discharged; Lauer's interrogation of Berg
on June 30; and the patent pretext for their discharge, manifested by
the almost immediate offer to reinstate them if they would only admit
that they had been discharged for the reason put forward by
Respondent 2
3. We find no merit in Respondent's contention that the filing of the
petition, subsequently withdrawn before the election, relieved it of
an obligation to bargain pursuant to the written request of the Union
which was received on June 20 .1 The Union enjoyed a clear majority
as of that date and Respondent never asserted any doubt as to the
Union's majority status. Furthermore, the discharge of Berg and
Filbig and its unlawful interrogation and threats indicate that Re-
spondent's intention in failing to bargain was to gain time in which
to undermine the Union's majority status.4 In coming to this con-
clusion, we do not rely solely on the fact, which the Trial Examiner
cites, that Respondent failed to reply to the Union's request for ne-
gotiation. Standing alone, it would not persuade us that Respondent
acted in bad faith.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as its Order.5
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
2 Respondent asserts that it discharged Berg and Filbig for drinking beer in the shop
Berg , Filbig, and a third employee , Spitznagel , were admittedly drinking beer on Tuly 18
after the close of working hours. We are satisfied that this was not an unusual occur-
rence and had even been done in the past in the presence of supervisors Moreover, after
discharging Berg and Filbig for this alleged offense, Tatti was told that Spitznagel had
also been drinking beer but took no disciplinary action against him
8 Arts & Crafts Distributors , Inc, 132 NLRB 166.
4 Arts it Crafts Distributors , Inc, supra
5 The following is to be inserted in the notice below the sentence beginning "This notice
must remain posted . ": Employees may communicate directly with the Board ' s Regional
Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Tele-
phone Number Richmond 9-4711, Extension 1031, if they have any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves questions as to whether Al Tatti, Incorporated , herein called
Respondent , unlawfully interfered with the rights of his employees to join Interna-
tional Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , and unlaw-
fully discharged two employees , as well as failing to bargain in good faith with the
Union , thereby violating Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, herein called the Act. A hearing in this matter was conducted in
Los Angeles , California , on October 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1961.
Upon the entire record, consideration of briefs submitted , and my observation of
the witnesses , I make the following:
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY; LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is engaged in the sale and service of Volkswagen automobiles in
Downey, California. It is a California corporation with its principal office and place
of business in Downey, California, and during the past 12 months has made retail
sales of products valued in excess of $500,000 and has purchased goods for resale
valued in excess of $50,000 which originated outside the State of California. It is
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ISSUES
The issues presented may be summarized as follows: (1) At all material times
herein, did the Union represent a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit?
(2) Did Respondent through its responsible agents make unlawful statements aimed
at preventing the exercise of Section 7 rights of its employees? (3) Were employees
Werner Berg and George Filbig discharged by the Respondent because of its anti-
union motivation? and (4) Did Respondent breach its obligation to bargain with
the Union by the discharge of Filbig and Berg and by its failure to meet with the
Union pursuant to the Union's request for negotiations?
III. THE EVENTS
Early in 1961, Werner Berg and George Filbig, employed as mechanics by
Respondent, commenced speaking to the other employees about organizing a union.
Approximately in April 1961, they met with Charles Edwards, a representative of
the Union, and informed him of their desire to become organized because of the
working conditions maintained by Respondent. Approximately 11/z months later,
there was a meeting of Respondent's employees held by the Union, and 7 employees
out of a maximum bargaining unit of 11 signed union authorization cards. Follow-
ing this, on June 19, 1961, Charles Edwards, representative of the Union, addressed
a letter to Respondent advising Respondent that the Union represented a majority
of its employees in the service department and requested Respondent to notify his
office as to the time and place when a meeting could occur. At this time Al Tatti,
the president and apparently principal owner of the Respondent, was out of the
country and Clarence McCall, whom he had left in charge of his business, turned
the letter of June 19, 1961, over to a labor-management consultant. Respondent
did not reply orally or by writing to the request for a meeting that the Union
directed to it on June 19, 1961.
On June 21, 1961, Mr. Aycock, a Grand Lodge representative of the Union, filed
a petition for certification with the National Labor Relations Board. This petition
was withdrawn on July 21, 1961, approximately 3 days after the discharge of
Werner Berg and George Filbig. These employees were discharged when Albert
Lauer, Respondent's sales manager, in company with Tatti, went out into the
service area where Filbig and Berg were present. The time was after 5:10 pm.
Five n.m. was the customary time for the mechanics to end the workday Berg
and Filbig were both discharged at this time for allegedly drinking beer. Further
details of this event and its significance will be considered herein in connection with
the question of whether Berg and Filbig were discriminatorily discharged.
On the Monday morning following their discharge, Berg and Filbig reported to
work at Respondent's premises because they had been asked to do so by Lauer on
the previous Saturday evening.'
On this occasion Tatti advised Berg and Filbig they could return to work if they
would sign a paper or stipulation that they were fired for drinking on the job and
that they did not expect backpay. Berg and Filbig refused to return to work under
those conditions and that evening they received the following telegram from Tatti:
"NEW DEVELOPMENTS SEE ME TODAY ABOUT JOB. AL TATTI."
1 Tattl denied that he instructed Lauer to have Berg and Filbig recalled. Although
Lauer testified for Respondent he did not deny that he told Berg, as Berg credibly testi-
fied, "Werner, I believe that we want you back. We want you back." I said, "What
about brother George1" He says, "Well, we want you both back Why don't you come
down on Monday and talk to Mr Al Tatti about this here'" Under all the circum-
stances it is difficult to conceive of Lauer calling back Berg and Filbig, absent Tattl's
direction.
AL TATTI, INCORPORATED 171
Filbig and Berg went to Respondent's premises that evening and again saw Tatti
about 5:30 p.m., and Tatti then advised them they they could go back to work with
"no stipulations this time." Berg and Filbig resumed their employment for Re-
spondent and continued in such employment until the occasion of the hearing.
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On June 30, 1961, Sales Manager Albert Lauer, a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act, asked Berg "why we were joining the union" and then went on to state,
in effect, that the Union would not do the employees any good.
On July 26, 1961, employee LeRoy Vander Stroom was driving Tatti to another
auto dealer to pick up his car. En route Tatti asked Vander Stroom who got the
Union started in the shop and also made a comment, as they approached the lot of
the other dealer, that the employees there finally realized that the Union did not
work out for them.
On August 16, 1961, Tatti told Willem Vander Stroom that mechanics could be
replaced if the Union came in, and also on another occasion he asked Willem
Vander Stroom how many people the Union had. Tatti then made some motions
apparently counting on his fingers and made the comment that "as long as we can
keep it that way they can't win."
On September 23, 1961, in response to an inquiry from Willem Vander Stroom,
Perk Ogden, a supervisor of Respondent, stated that the Union would never get in,
the reason being that "we could replace the mechanics." 2
On July 31, 1961, employee Milton Tubbs returned from his vacation. He told
Louis Meeks that he had heard some fellows were fired while he was on vacation.
Meeks replied it was true and the fired employees were trying to organize a union.
I find that Tubbs' credited and uncontradicted testimony establishes that the service
manager, Louis Meeks, a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, stated that Berg
and Filbig were fired because they were trying to organize a union.
It is found that Lauer's inquiry from Berg as to why he was joining the Union
coupled with the comment that the Union would not do the employees any good was
unjustified and unlawful interference. Of similar import is Tatti's inquiry from
LeRoy Vander Stroom as to who started the Union coupled with a comment that the
employees of another employer finally realized that a union was not beneficial for
them. Also of similar import is Tatti's inquiry from Willem Vander Stroom as to
how many employees would support the Union coupled with his comment that
mechanics could be replaced if the Union were successful. Ogden's statement of
September 23, 1961, to Willem Vander Stroom that the Union would never be
successful because the mechanics could be replaced is found also to contain a threat
of economic reprisal and by its nature would tend to inhibit the employees' right to
organize.
Meeks' statement to Tubbs that Filbig and Berg were fired for trying to organize
a union is another obvious expression that constitutes unlawful restraint, interference,
and coercion violative of the Act.
B. Discharge of Berg and Filbig
As noted above, Meeks who was a responsible agent for Respondent on July 31,
1961, stated that Filbig and Berg were fired because they were trying to organize
a union. Without more this would establish a prima facie case of discrimination
against Berg and Filbig. A closer scrutiny of the events surrounding their dis-
charge and the testimony concerning it bolsters the finding that there were antiunion
considerations in Respondent's discriminatory discharge of Filbig and Berg.
Respondent's answer pleads as an affirmative defense that these men were dis-
charged for drinking alcoholic beverages on the premises during working hours.
However, the record is clear and uncontradicted that beer was consumed on many
occasions in the presence of Service Supervisors Meeks and Makepeace. In his
testimony Tatti stated he insisted his supervisors report to him any infraction of
rules by employees and since the record is barren that drinking beer after working
hours had ever been considered an infraction of a rule, Tatti's claim that he told em-
2 Lauer as well as President Patti and Supervisor Ogden denied any conversation or
statements held with Respondent's employees concerning the Union In crediting the
testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses, significant considerations include the appear-
ance of candor and frankness with which they testified. Also a factor in crediting the
General Counsel's witnesses when in conflict with Respondent's witnesses are several
instances of implausibility or conflict in Respondent's evidence which will be noted else-
where herein
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees when he hired them never to drink on the premises is unpersuasive. Further,
Tatti's claim that he interviewed all employees personally and told them that drink-
ing was not allowed on the premises as a matter of company policy is credibly con-
tradicted . Berg credibly testified that he talked to Tatti for the first time in the shop
when he was at work and that nothing was said about any rules against drinking.
LeRoy Vander Stroom credibly testified that he never had any conversation with
Tatti at all about his job or about drinking.
The record is clear that on many occasions prior to July 18, 1961 , the mechanics
and service department personnel had a can of beer on the premises on the comple-
tion of their work in the presence of the service department supervisor.
Further, in June 1961 , the sales manager , Lauer, gave one of the employees enough
money to buy a 6-pack carton of beer in exchange for a favor they did him in chang-
ing some seats after working hours. Since there were several employees and since
Lauer admitted that he gave the $1.50 to just one of them , I find his testimony un-
believable that it was purely a tip and not coupled with a suggestion to buy a 6-pack
carton of beer, as the General Counsel's witnesses asserted.
On the evening of July 18, after 5 p.m., when Tatti and Lauer went into the service
department , Tatti testified that it was necessary for him to go with Lauer to check
a serial number against a record . Lauer testified that it was not necessary for two
people to check a serial number against a record . At approximately 4:30 that after-
noon , Berg passed near the vicinity of an area on Respondent 's premises where Sales
Manager Lauer and Eddie Taylor, one of Respondent 's witnesses , were in conver-
sation. At this time Lauer said to Berg that he should be careful about his drink-
ing and Berg replied that he had nothing to worry about since he never drank on the
job. Taylor testified that Lauer said at this time, "No drinking , boys." Despite this,
shortly before 5 p.m., Taylor, after receiving an affirmative response to his inquiry
brought beer to Berg, Filbig, an employee , Spitznagel , and one for himself. The
testimony of Berg and Filbig is credited to the effect that Taylor drank only a portion
of the beer and hurriedly left, taking the remainder with him in his car. After
Taylor left, Tatti and Lauer appeared on the scene and when Berg lifted his can of
beer, Tatti walked over and grabbed it from his hand and told him he was fired for
drinking on the job According to Berg, when Tatti was informed that Berg had
completed his work, Tatti told him he was fired for drinking on the premises . At this
time ,I find that Berg had the upper portion of his work clothes removed and had
completed his day's work, contrary to any inference that might be contained in the
testimony of Tatti and Lauer.
Tatti and Lauer then conferred and Tatti came over to where Filbig was located
and asked him if he had drunk any beer, and when Filbig told him that he had,
Tatti said that he was fired too.
In summary I find that on the evening of July 18, 1961 , Filbig and Berg had com-
pleted their work and there was no credible evidence establishing that Respondent
had a rule against drinking beer on the premises , but that in fact the practice had
been in effect for at least 2 years without being a subject of comment or criticism.
Tatti's claim of this is rejected as being incredible. Tatti's testimony that he had
never heard of the machinists union after being in the automobile business for 5
years further weakens the reliability of his testimony when it conflicts with the
witness of the General Counsel.
Since Tatti admitted that Berg and Filbig were technically experienced employees,
it is found that he had no reason to discharge them except for his opposition to the
Union.
C. The failure to bargain
Preliminary to making a resolution as to whether Respondent violated its obli-
gations to bargain under the Act, a finding of an appropriate unit and majority
representation must first be made.
1. The appropriate unit
Respondent 's answer admits that the unit designated in the General Counsel's
complaint is an appropriate unit. This unit as alleged is:
All service department employees , including automotive mechanics , their ap-
prentices and helpers , service salesmen , and countermen employed by Re-
spondent at its Downey, California , facility, exclusive of all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.3
9 The charge upon which this complaint was issued excludes the job classification of
"lotboy" The complaint does not explicitly exclude the lotboy classification Eddie
AL TATTI, INCORPORATED 173
2. The majority question
Inasmuch as the maximum number of employees in the unit when the request to
bargain was made was 11 and of that number the Union represented 7, I find that
the record establishes without question that the Union represented a majority in the
appropriate unit which includes the classification of lotboy.
3. Events establishing a failure to bargain
On June 19, 1961, a letter signed by Charles Edwards, a union representative,
advised Respondent that the Union represented a majority of its service department
employees and contained a request that the Respondent advise as to a convenient
time and place for commencing negotiations.
On June 21, 1961, the Union's Grand Lodge representative, Aycock, filed with the
National Labor Relations Board a petition for the Union to be certified as the
majority representative of Respondent's service department employees.
Respondent did not reply at any time in any manner to the Union's request of
June 19, 1961. The filing of the petition for certification did not relieve the Respond-
ent of its obligation to meet with the majority representative of its employees. It
is noted that the record does not contain any claim by Respondent that it failed to
respond to this request because of doubt of the Union's majority. N.L.R.B. v. Inter-
City Advertising Co., of Charlotte, N.C., Inc., et at., 190 F. 2d 420 (C.A. 4);
N.L.R.B. v. Samuel J. Kobritz, d/b/a Star Beef Company, 193 F. 2d 8 (C.A. 1).
On July 21, 1961, the Union withdrew its petition for certification and after Berg
and Filbig were discriminatorily discharged, I find that Respondent did not have a
good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority at any time after it received the letter
of June 19, 1961, requesting recognition .4 The discharge of Berg and Filbig was, I
find, a further manifestation of Respondent's rejection of the collective-bargaining
process. Consequently the discharge of Berg and Filbig at a time the Union actually
represented a majority and when the Respondent did not have a good-faith doubt
as to majority representation also constitutes an unlawful failure to bargain. Sum-
mit Mining Corporation, 119 NLRB 1668, where at page 1674 the Board states:
As was said in N.L R B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4),
an invalid discharge "goes to the very heart of the Act." A fundamental prin
ciple of the Act is that the inevitable effect of such a discharge is to restrain
and coerce employees. It follows that the Respondent's conduct made a free
election impossible. That being so, the Union had no realistic course of action
but to withdraw its petition in the representation case and to have its majority
status determined in a complaint proceeding. See Aiello Dairy Farms, 110
NLRB 1365. In summary, I find that on September 21, 1956, the Respondent
refused to bargain collectively in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the
Act.
In view of the foregoing, it is found that the Respondent violated its obligation
to bargain under the statute by failing to reply to the Union's request for negotiation
contained in its letter of June 19, 1961, and by wrongfully discharging Werner Berg
and George Filbig on July 18, 1961.
Taylor, one of Respondent's witnesses, whom Respondent sought to have included in the
unit, and the General Counsel, excluded, apparently fits the classification of lotboy He is
under the supervision of the sales department manager and occupied primarily in cleaning
the premises and doing such work as changing tires and replacing or charging batteries
on new and used cars Since the type of work he performs is more nearly akin to that of
service department personnel, I find that the characterization of lotboy should be included
in the unit even though he is under the supervision of the manager of the sales depart-
ment I do not find that the Union's failure to include the lotboy in its proposed unit
rendered the unit defective since the variance between the requested unit and the appro-
priate one was of a minor nature and would not of itself relieve Respondent from a duty
to bargain with the Union
4 Tatti, the president of Respondent, was out of the country from May until approxi-
mately July 16. He left a Clarence McCall in charge of his business and McCall turned
over the request for recognition and a copy of the petition for certification to a labor-
management consultant I do not find any circumstances present that would relieve the
Respondent from responsibility of failing to answer the Union's request for recognition or
at least to pursue a means of establishing the question of majority Respondent instead
of this elected to engage in unfair labor practices having a tendency to reduce the majority
status of the Union.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE REMEDY
In order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the
Act, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7. N.L.R.B. v.
Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Al Tatti, Incorporated, is an employer within the meaning of the
Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
3. All service department employees , including automotive mechanics, their
apprentices and helpers, service salesmen, countermen, and lotboys employed by
Respondent at its Downey, California, facility, exclusive of all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
4. On June 19, 1961, the Union was, and at all times thereafter has been, the
exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
5. By unlawfully threatening and interrogating its employees Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By discriminatorily discharging George Filbig and Werner Berg on July 18,
1961, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. By failing to respond to the Union's request to negotiate and by discharging
George Filbig and Werner Berg at a time when the Union represented a majority
of its employees in the above-described unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
8. By the commission of the above violations of the Act, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that Al Tatti, Incorporated, Downey, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to their union membership,
threatening them with replacement, explicitly or implicitly, to discourage union
organization, and informing the employees that discharges were caused by attempts
to organize a union.
(b) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists, AFI-
CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging, laying off,
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees because of their concerted or union
activities, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit
set forth above.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
unit, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Make whole George Filbig and Werner Berg for any loss of wages occa-
sioned by their unlawful discharge.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records. time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to establish the
loss of wages suffered by Werner Berg and George Filbig.
(d) Post in conspicuous places at its place of business in Downey, California,
including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted, copies of
AL TATTI, INCORPORATED 175
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region , shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith .6
51n the event that these recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Ordei" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
6 In the event that these recommendations be adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Association of Ma-
chinists , AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by
discriminating with regard to their tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities
on behalf of International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employes , or threaten them in any manner violative
of Section 8 (a)( I).
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form, j oin, or assist
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by any agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the International Associa-
tion of Machinists AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all our em-
ployees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment , and other conditions of employment , and if an understanding is
reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The appropriate
unit is:
All service department employees , including automotive mechanics, their
apprentices and helpers , service salesmen and countermen , and lotboys em-
ployed by Respondent at its Downey , California , facility, exclusive of all
other employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL make whole George Filbig and Werner Berg for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them.
All of our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming
or remaining members in good standing of International Association of Machinists,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , except to the extent that this right may
be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended .
AL TArrI, INCORPORATED,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.