All-Tronics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 644 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All-Tronics , Inc. and Local 868, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America . Case 29-CA-1233'
April 29, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On February 7, 1969, Trial Examiner James T.
Barker issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practice conduct
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
of those allegations. Finally, the Trial Examiner
found that certain conduct of Respondent interfered
with the election in Case 29-RC-933 and
recommended that the election be set aside.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent
each filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations" of the
Trial Examiner, with the modifications set forth
below.
This case was previously consolidated with Case 29-RC-933 In the
Board 's Order of February 7, 1969 , the cases were severed and Case
29-RC-933 was remanded to the Regional Director for Region 29 for
further appropriate action On April 9, 1969, the Regional Director set
aside the election
'In adopting the Trial Examiner 's Decision , we correct the following
inadvertent errors
(a) The reference in the Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order
to Magdalene Williams. Geraldine Williams is the correct name of the
disenmmatee
(b) The reference in section III, B , 4, a, first paragraph , to an election
on October 6. The election was held on February 6
(c) The references to Union Business Representative Donald Bruckner as
William Bruckner, Supervisor Charles Downs as William Downs,
employee George Williams as George Davis
'In addition to the reasons cited by the Trial Examiner for finding that
Respondent 's interrogations of employees as to their union sentiments was
violative of Section 8(aXl), we note that these interrogations occurred in a
context of other unfair labor practices.
'In view of Respondent's extensive violations of Section 8(a)(l) and (3)
of the Act, we find that a broad cease and desist order is warranted and we
1. We find merit in General Counsel's exception
to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) on January 12,
1968, when its supervisor, Geiger, threatened
employee Krinsky with possible loss of coffee breaks
and bathroom privileges if the plant were unionized.
The record does not support the Trial Examiner's
conclusion that the threats were mitigated by the
suggestion that these benefits would become the
subject of negotations.
2. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's
conclusion that the wage increases granted three
employees effective January 15, 17, and 19 were
unlawful. These wage increases followed on the heels
of increases granted to seven other employees; wage
increases which the Trial Examiner found were not
shown to be unlawful. While the latter three, unlike
the initial seven, were instituted effective at the time
when Respondent clearly knew that the union
organizational drive had begun, we find no evidence
in the record which would support an inference that
Respondent' s reasons for granting these three
increases differed from the reasons prompting the
earlier increases.
However, we agree with the Trial Examiner that
the general wage increase granted in March,
following the Union's defeat and while objections
were pending, was violative of Section 8(a)(1). While
there is some evidence that the wage increase came
at a time when Respondent normally conducted a
wage review, there is no evidence that this increase
was pursuant to such a review. In view of
Respondent 's union animus , the fact that the
increase followed closely in time the January
increases , and the fact that the increases came at a
time when Respondent faced the possibility of a
second election, the inference is warranted that the
increases were designed to further erode Union
support among the employees.
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that a
bargaining order is necessary to remedy
Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(5). We
further find that a bargaining order is necessary to
remedy the effects of Respondent's other unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The
record shows that the Union represented a majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit when
Respondent initiated its course of unfair labor
practices aimed at destroying this support. To the
extent that the election revealed a 'loss 'of union
support thereafter, such loss must be found
attributable to Respondent's unfair labor practices
which were of a serious and extensive nature.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
shall modify the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner accordingly.
175NLRB No. 110
ALL-TRONICS, INC.
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein , and hereby orders that Respondent,
All-Tronics, Inc., Westbury, Long Island, New
York, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following to paragraph 1(a) of the
Trial Examiner' s Recommended Order: "However,
nothing herein requires Respondent to rescind wage
increases previously instituted."
2. Amend paragraph 1(c) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order by substituting for the words
"In any like or related manner" the words "In any
other manner...."
3. Add the following as paragraph 2(c), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
4. Add the following to the third indented
paragraph of the Appendix:
.. . However , nothing in this order requires us
to discontinue the new rates of pay previously
given to you.
5. Insert the following as the ninth indented
pars raph of the notice:
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces. -
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER , Trial Examiner: This matter was
heard at Brooklyn, New York, on various dates in August
and October 1968, pursuant to a charge filed on February
8, 1968,' in Case No. 29-CA-1233. By an order and notice
of hearing issued by the Regional Director on May 21, the
complaint of the same date issued by the Regional
Director in Case No. 29-CA-1233 was consolidated for
hearing with issues raised pursuant to timely filed
objections in Case No. 29-RC-933. The consolidated
complaint alleges violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter called
the Act. The parties timely filed briefs with me.
Upon consideration of the briefs and upon the record in
this case = and my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
' All dates referred to herein relate to 1968.
'On December 23, 1968 , the parties filed with the Trial Examiner a
stipulation correcting page 347 , lines 16 to 18 of the transcript of this
proceeding to reflect that certain named "employees received wage
increases effective January 6 , 1968 , which were received in their pay on
January 16, 1968."
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
645
The Respondent is and has been at all times material
herein a New York corporation maintaining its principal
office and place of business at Westbury, Long Island,
New York, where it is, and has been at all pertinent
times engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of
electronic equipment and related products.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint
herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, manufactured, sold and distributed at
its Westbury plant, products valued -in excess of $50,000,
of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were
shipped from said plant in interstate commerce directly to
States of the United States other than the State of New
York.
Upon these admitted facts, and the stipulation of the
Respondent at the hearing, I find that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 868, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, hereinafter called the Union, is stipulated to be
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act, and I so find.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
This case raises the issues whether (1) upon being
presented with a bargaining demand by the Union the
Respondent unlawfully laid off an employee and
terminated one other because of their respective union
activities, and briefly laid off three other employees as a
cloak to this allegedly discriminatory conduct; (2)
interrogated employees concerning their union activity and
threatened employees with changes in working conditions
and, loss of benefits if they selected the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative; (3) granted general
and selective wage increases to unit employees and (4)
unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain collectively
with the Union. This latter issue places in question the
majority status of the Union and whether the
Respondent's declination was based on a good-faith doubt
of the Union's majority status. Additionally, there is
raised in this proceeding, the question whether within 24
hours of the Board-conducted election Respondent
addressed its employees concerning the Union and the
election and whether Respondent's conduct was such as to
warrant setting aside the results of the February 6 election
conducted in Case No. 29-RC-933.
B. Pertinent Facts
1. Prefatory facts
a. The representation election
The evidence of record reveals that on January 12 the
Union filed a representation petition in Case No.
29-RC-933 and that on January 17 the parties entered into
an Agreement for Consent Election which agreement was
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
approved by the Regional Director on January 18. On
February 6 an election was held and on February 8 the
Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election.
b. Respondent's operations
Harold Westman is president of Respondent and
Gilbert Geiger and Charles Downs are , respectively,
production manager and foreman . For administrative and
payroll purposes the employees at Respondent ' s Westbury
plant are classified as office, technical and factory. The
production and maintenance employees fall into the
factory category and are those employees pertinent to the
instant proceeding.
The total factory area of Respondent's Westbury plant
occupies 66 feet by 44 feet . Included in this area is the
general assembly area which occupies 30 feet by 30 feet,
as well as a small capacitory winding room and a machine
shop. Additionally, within the total factory area is housed
an impregnation tank room which occupies a 10 foot by
40 foot space. Factory employees only occasionally work
in this room.
The credible testimony of Harold Westman reveals that
for cost allocation and payroll purposes the factory is
divided into six departments . These include the machine
shop, designated 360; general production , 362; capacitor
winding , 103; receiving and shipping , 401; quality control,
403 and cleaning department, 365.' Westman further
credibly testified that the electrical components produced
by Respondent must undergo a machine, assembly,
cleaning and winding operation . The payroll records
introduced into evidence pertaining to the production and
maintenance employees reveal that the designation
"factory" department is applied to each employee. There
is no reference to any other departmental designation.
Westman testified that pursuant to instructions and
company practice , each employee is given a timesheet or
timecard upon which he records the departmental
designation number of the department in which he
performs duties during any given workday . Westman
further testified that, if an employee, during any workday,
does work in two or more departments he must record on
his timesheet or timecard the departmental designation
number of each department in which he performs duties
other than those determined by the employee himself to be
merely incidental to his work in the principal department.
The Respondent introduced into evidence timecards or
time tickets of John Echezuria, an alleged discriminatee
whose departmental placement is pertinent to his layoff,
covering dates between November 10 and January 12.' On
each of these cards, Echezuria had recorded the
departmental designation number - 360 - of the
machine shop . Echezuria credibly testified that he did so
because he had been instructed to record this number and
had no awareness of the practice of recording the
departmental designation number of other departments in
which he performs substantial duties during a given
workday.
Echezuria testified however that, except for the first
week of his employment when he worked exclusively in
'Within the general production department is a general assembly
operation which is accorded the same departmental designation number -
362 - as the general production department.
'These time tickets do not encompass each day of Echezuria's
employment and there is a substantial void of timecards for the first week
in January 1968.
the machine shop, he worked in a variety of jobs including
work in the soldering department, coil winding and the
machine shop.' The testimony of Christine Lahti confirms
Echezuria's assertion that he performed work outside the
machine shop.'
c. The production and maintenance unit
On January 11 and 12, there were employed at
Respondent's Westbury plant 27 production and
maintenance employees. Included in this group of
employees were John Echezuria as well as Jeffrey Batt,
Geraldine Williams, Minnie Williams and Christine Lahti,
other alleged discriminatees.
d. The organizational campaign
At material times John Echezuria worked both at
Respondent 's plant and at a firm known as New York
Twist Drill. He was, at pertinent times, a member of the
Union. At New York Twist Drill he was shop steward.
He entered Respondent's employ on November 11, 1967,
and shortly before January 9, 1968, he spoke with Donald
Bruckner , secretary -treasurer and business representative
of the Union , with respect to undertaking organizational
efforts at Respondent 's plant . On January 9, Echezuria
had occasion to speak with George Williams, an employee
of Respondent , and a Negro, concerning the benefits of a
union . He presented Williams with eight blank
authorization cards and urged Williams to endeavor to
obtain signatures on the cards and to devote specific
attention to obtaining the signature of other Negro
employees. Thereafter, efforts were made by George
Williams, Echezuria and employee Martin Carrillo to
have other production and maintenance employees sign
union authorization cards . There were received in evidence
18 signed union authorization cards .' Eight cards were
dated January 9, six were dated January 10, three were
dated January 11 and one - the card of Jeffrey Batt -
was undated.
Fourteen employees testified credibly at the hearing to
having affixed their own signature to authorization cards
received in evidence bearing their names .' Except for the
card of Jeffrey Batt , which was undated , each of the cards
bore either a January 9, 10, or 11 date . Batt testified
credibly that he was laid off on January 12 and that he
signed his authorization card prior to being laid off. He
'Soldering is a subdivision of the production department and coil
winding is a section of the capacitor winding department.
'Additional support for Echezuria ' s testimony is gained from the
testimony of part-time employees Richard Janiec and Thomas Gentile to
the effect that , as part-time employees , they performed a variety of work
The functions described by them fall under the jurisdiction of more than
one department and would not be exclusively within the work jurisdiction
of the machine shop.
'The printed portions of the card was as follows:
I, the undersigned , hereby apply for membership in Union Local 868,
an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers, and do hereby authorize Local 868 to
represent me in collective -bargaining with my employer.
NAME DATE
ADDRESS Tel. No
EMPLOYER
EMPLOYER'S ADDRESS
POSITION
SIGNATURE
All information kept strictly confidential
'These were : Jeffrey Batt , Martin Carillo , John Echezuna , Frankie
ALL-TRONICS, INC.
credibly testified further that he executed his card at his
home and returned it to George Williams who had given
the blank card to him. John Echezuria credibly testified
that he delivered the signed authorization card to Batt to
the home of Donald Bruckner on January 10, along with
14 other executed authorization cards.
John Echezuria further credibly testified that he
observed Oresto Mazzucca fill out and sign an
authorization card in the machine shop at the plant.
Mazzucca's card was dated January 10. Echezuria further
testified credibly that he had spoken with Mazzucca on a
prior occasion about joining the Union and he had
promised to sign an authorization card. On the day on
which Mazzucca executed his authorization card
Echezuria had approached him and stated to him, "most
of the fellows had joined the union." Mazzucca executed
his authorization card in Echezuria's presence and
returned it to Echezuria.
Echezuria further testified credibly that on January 10
he presented employee Richard Hummer with a blank
authorization card which Hummer signed in his presence
and returned to him.'
The further credited testimony of John Echezuria
reveals that on January 10 he had received 15 executed
authorization cards which he personally delivered to the
home of Donald Bruckner . Later in the evening of
January 10 he conversed with Bruckner and informed
Bruckner that he had been successful in signing up a
majority of the employees and requested Bruckner to go
to the plant the following morning and request
recognition." Thus, George Williams credibly testified
that he distributed authorization cards he had received
from Echezuria to Geraldine Williams , Minnie Williams,
Magdalene Williams, Frankie _ Ephraim and Selita Davis.
Williams testified credibly that these cards were returned
to him. He put them in an envelope , together with other
cards which he had distributed and which had been
returned to him . He gave the cards to Echezuria.
Echezuria credibly testified that on January 10 George
Williams returned five executed authorization cards to
him. Included among these were his own card and those
of Magdalene , Minnie and Geraldine Williams as well as
that of Frankie Ephraim. He further credibly testified that
the card of Selita Davis, dated January 11, was returned
to him separately by George Williams on January I1 and
that when he received it it was entirely filled out and bore
the printed name "Selita Davis" on the signature line."
Ephraim , Nathan Krinsky, Christine Lahti , George Nartowicz , Carmen
Perez , Irma Perez , Anthony Romagnoli, Joseph Secreto , George Williams,
Magdalene Williams , and Minnie Williams.
Irma Perez testified credibly that she signed her authorization card in
the presence of her sister Carmen Perez and that after she had signed her
card her sister, Carmen , placed an accent mark over that first letter "e" in
the name Perez. Carmen Perez credibly testified that she did this because
it was her habit , consonant with her practice in Puerto Rico where she had
received her schooling, to include the accent mark.
'That Hummer in signing his card on January 10, 1968 , incorrectly
wrote " 1967" is explainable as a mere inadvertance and is insufficient to
overcome the testimony that the execution of the card occurred at the time
specified by Echezuria.
"The evidence establishes that by January 10, 15 employees had signed
authorization cards . They are: Jeffrey Batt , Martin Carillo, John
Echezuria, Frankie Ephraim , Richard Hummer , Nathan Krinsky, Christine
Lahti , Oresto Mazzucca , George Nartowicz , Anthony Romagnoli , Joseph
Secreto, George Williams , Geraldine Williams , Magdalene Williams, and
Minnie Williams.
"I credit Echezuria 's testimony that he received the card of Selita Davis
from George Williams at a time subsequent to his receipt of the other five
647
e. The demand for recognition
William Bruckner credibly testified that on the morning
of January 11, at approximately 9 a.m., he went alone to
the plant. He met with Harold Westman, president of
Respondent. After identifying himself by name and after
indicating his affiliation with the Union, Bruckner
informed Westman that the Union represented a majority
of his employees and stated that he wished to make an
appointment with Westman to negotiate a
collective-bargaining agreement. Westman disclaimed any
knowledge "about unions" and indicated his desire to
avail himself of consultation on the matter. Westman
stated that he would contact Bruckner with respect to
contract negotiations on the following Monday or
Tuesday. The conversation then turned to a consideration
of the employees to be included in the unit and Bruckner
indicated that he was seeking "the factory maintenance
and production people." Westman inquired whether office
employees and technicians were to be included in the unit
and Bruckner answered that he was not seeking to
represent the office employees and, while technicians were
included, if the Company had "substantial reason" for
excluding them he would discuss the matter with
Westman.
As the conversation continued Bruckner indicated his
willingness to provide evidence of the Union's majority
status by submitting the authorization cards to any
"impartial person." Westman made no response to this
offer.
Upon leaving Westman's office Bruckner stated his
expectation of hearing from Westman on the following
Monday or Tuesday.
Later in the day on January 11, Bruckner prepared and
dispatched by certified mail a demand letter to Harold
Westman.
f. Additional cards obtained
John Echezuria credibly testified that on January 11 he
received the executed authorization cards of Carmen
Perez, Irma Perez and Selita Davis. He delivered those
cards to the residence of Donald Bruckner on the
afternoon of January 11. Bruckner received the cards
upon his return home in the evening of January 11.
g. The representation petition
On January 12 Donald Bruckner, on behalf of the
Union, filed a representation petition in Case 29-RC-933
seeking to represent employees in the following described
unit:
All hourly rated production and maintenance employees
who are regularly scheduled to work 20 hours per week
or more, excluding all others under the Act.
Subsequently, in support of this petition, Bruckner on
January 16 submitted 18 authorization cards' to the
National Labor Relations Board.
Thereafter, as found above, on January 18 the Regional
Director approved an agreement for consent election
executed between the Company and the Union providing
for an election to be conducted on February 6 between the
cards. The card of Davis was unique in that it bore a printed "signature"
which would explain Echezuria ' s ability to specifically recall the
circumstance of its receipt. To the extent that the testimony of George
Williams is susceptible of an interpretation that Davis ' card was returned
to Echezuria on January 10 with other cards, I reject it
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours of 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m., at the Company's Westbury
plant. The payroll eligibility date established by the
agreement was the week ending January 12. The following
described unit was that agreed to as the appropriate
collective-bargaining unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Employer at 45 Bond Street, Westbury, N. Y.,
excluding all office clerical, sales , professional and
technical employees, watchmen, guards & supervisors as
defined in the Act.
In due course, the election was conducted on February
6, and on February 8, the Union filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the election.
2. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
a. The events of January 11
On January 11, at the 10 a.m., coffee break, Harold
Westman spoke with Supervisors Gilbert Geiger and
William Downs and informed them that a representative
of the Union had met with him and claimed to represent a
majority of the employees. He informed Geiger and
Downs that he had rejected the Union's demand and
stated that he was not certain what his next move was. He
instructed Geiger and Downs to speak with the employees
without threatening or intimidating them so that they
might gauge the general atmosphere in the shop.'2
Subsequently, on the morning of January 11, Gilbert
Geiger spoke with employees Mia Nastri, Mary DiRocco,
and Oresto Mazzucca. Geiger separately approached
Nastri and DiRocco, informing them that the Company
had been contacted by the Union which was seeking to
represent the employees. He asked Nastri and DiRocco
how they felt about the Union. On the other hand Geiger
was approached by Mazzucca who volunteered that he
had signed an authorization card. However Mazzucca
stated that he had been informed that the card did not
mean anything because he was free to vote either yes or
no "when the election came." Geiger made no comment
in response to Mazzucca.
Also on January 11, William Downs spoke with
employees DiRocco, Romagnoli, and Lahti. He informed
DiRocco that the Union had contacted Westman seeking
to represent the employees and asked DiRocco to give her
views on this matter. She responded that no one from the
Union had contacted her and she stated that she desired
to "hold her own views to herself." Downs approached
Romagnoli at his work station and informed him of the
contact from the Union and the Union's desire to
represent the employees. Downs asked Romagnoli's view
on the Union and Romagnoli stated that he was for the
"I credit the testimony of Charles Downs that this conversation with
Westman transpired on the morning of January 11. Testifying in response
to questions posed to him by counsel for the General Counsel , Harold
Westman stated that the conversation transpired on January 12. However,
I do not credit this testimony , for related events found to have transpired
on January II in the plant indicate that Downs , rather than Westman, is
correct in his placement of the date of this meeting.
Counsel for Respondent , by use of leading questions, elicited from
Downs the response that at the meeting in question Westman had indicated
his wish to have Westman and Geiger ascertain employee sentiment for the
purpose of permitting him to determine whether he should sign a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union immediately , or go to an
election While this may have been the purpose of Westman's instructions,
I am not convinced that he articulated this purpose in the clear manner
suggested by Downs' answers to these leading questions
Union. Downs asked the reason." Romagnoli answered
that he wanted to increase compensation and benefits. He
also volunteered the statement that he had signed an
authorization card.
At this point in the conversation, Downs recounted to
Romagnoli that the employees presently enjoyed certain
advantages such as free coffee and liberal bathroom
privileges which, if the Union came in, would be subject to
negotiation and be governed by contract. Romagnoli
became effusive and John Echezuria who was working
nearby interjected. Echezuria observed that under state
law the Company could not limit bathroom privileges.
Romagnoli made a pungent observation concerning the
inability of the Company to control the bodily processes
of its employees. Thereupon, Downs observed that he was
not threatening employees with the loss of bathroom
privileges or anything else but that if the Union got in it
was going to have a contract and "everything [would] be
negotiated." He made specific reference to another
company wherein the union had organized the employees
and it was provided in the resulting contract that the
employees would have to gain permission from
supervisory personnel in order to go to the bathroom. The
conversation appears to have ended on this note."
The conversation which Downs was having with
Romagnoli , merged into a conversation between
Echezuria, Downs and Geiger, and in the factory area of
the plant the three carried on a conversation. Geiger
observed that he did not blame Echezuria for his efforts in
endeavoring to organize the employees because he was a
"union official" but that employee Martin Carillo had no
business bringing the Union in because he was leaving the
Company's employ. Geiger stated, in effect, that in
conversing with the employees as they were presently
doing they were fulfilling the instructions which Westman
had given them and added that because of Echezuria and
Carillo the employees in the plant would be hurt. Geiger
explained that as a result of the Union the Company
would have to resort to layoffs, tighten up on production
and could not countenance people coming in late and
taking days off. Geiger also expressed apprehension that
the Union through its contract demands could have an
adverse economic impact upon the Company and upon the
many military contracts which the Company had. Geiger
explained that the Company had suffered a severe
economic loss due to uninsured fire damage which had
"Downs credibly testified that when Romagnoli was hired he worked
closely with Romagnoli in training him He further testified credibly that
during this period of time Romagnoli often voluntarily stated his
opposition to joining a union . He testified that , as a consequence, he was
surprised by Romagnoli 's statement.
"While I credit the testimony of Romagnoli and Echezuna to the effect
that in speaking with Romagnoli , Downs outlined several benefits and
privileges which the employees presently enjoyed , I credit Downs and not
Romagnoli or Echezuna , that he stated that privileges and benefits would
be subject to negotiation and would be governed by the contract with the
Union . I make this determination because I am convinced , upon a careful
analysis of the record testimony , that Downs undertook his interviews and
discussions with employees pursuant to specific instructions of Westman to
avoid direct threats and promises of benefit . I am convinced that Downs
endeavored to do so and was thus circumspect in phrasing his comments to
employees . Downs impressed me as a credible witness On the other hand,
while Romagnoli testified without intention to mislead , he was a
loquacious and impercise chronicler of events whose expansive qualities
were marked and whose testimony must be reviewed with substantial
skepticism. Although Echezuria tended to support Romagnoli to the effect
that Downs threatened loss of benefits and privileges, he conceded that,
"(I)n general , he [Downs] said the contract will limit the employees'
rights "
ALL-TRONICS, INC.
occurred earlier in the year. He further expressed the
opinion that two other companies which had been
organized had been "broken" by the Union and equated
unions with socialism. He observed that the employees,
under a union contract, would receive only one raise a
year.
The observations of Geiger were rebutted by
counterveiling contentions of Echezuria and the
conversation which had been an extended one terminated
at the lunch hour.15
On the afternoon of January 11, Downs spoke with
employee Christine Lahti. Lahti credibly testified that
Harold Westman spoke to her in the morning and
inquired if she had ever belonged to a union. She had
answered in the affirmative. Downs approached her and
informed her that the Union had contacted Westman
concerning representation. She answered that Westman
had already spoken to her concerning this. Downs
shrugged his shoulders and walked away. As he departed
Lahti observed, "(B)y the way, I am for the union and I
think you're a lousy boss." Geiger answered that he was
not engaged in a popularity contest."
b. The events of January 12
On the morning of January 12, prior to 8 a.m., Gilbert
Geiger and Charles Downs appeared at the plant premises
and opened the factory. It had been the practice of both
Geiger and Downs, prior to January 12, to arrive at the
factory after 8 a.m. and of employee Oresto Mazzucca to
open the factory in the morning ." Later in the day, during
the lunch hour, contrary to his usual practice Downs ate
lunch in the factory with the employees. He was joined at
lunch in the factory by the bookkeeper. Neither the
bookkeeper nor Downs had eaten their lunch in the plant
with the employee on prior occasions during Echezuria's
job tenure.'8
In the meantime, during the workday on January 12,
Downs engaged in conversation concerning the Union with
Irma and Carmen Perez and with George and Magdalene
Williams. Downs testified he told each employee that the
Union had contacted Westman and he asked for the
employees' "views on it." The response of the Perez
sisters is not revealed in the record, but Magdalene
Williams informed Downs when he spoke with her that he
would have to speak with her husband concerning this.
Downs then asked George Williams his views concerning
the Union and he answered that he was undecided and
"The foregoing is predicated upon the testimony of John Echezuria
which is not refuted.
"The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of Charles Downs.
To the extent that the testimony of Christine Lahti is inconsistent with that
of Charles Downs concerning this incident I reject it. Specifically , I do not
credit the testimony of Lahti to the effect that on January 11 Downs spoke
with her and threatened her with a limitation upon bathroom privileges
and a loss of cleanup time at the end of the workday. Rather, I am
convinced that Lahti ' s testimony to this effect was influenced by subjective
considerations ansing from her status as an alleged discriminatee in this
proceeding , and by reason of her admixture into her recount of the ev..nts
of January 11, descriptions of a conversation which transpired , as Downs
credibly testified , a week or 10 days prior to Christmas 1967. On that
occasion , Downs called in to question her frequent absences from her
workbench for the purpose of visiting the bathroom . I am convinced that
this December incident partially explains why Lahti , who impressed me as
a soft-spoken and quiet woman , responded so bluntly to Downs on January
11.
"The foregoing is based upon the credited testimony of John Echezuria
and Christine Lahti.
"John Echezuna so credibly testified.
649
that he would vote as he saw fit.
Downs also broached the subject of unionization to
George Nartowicz. He passed Nartowicz at his work
station and said, "George, you signed a card?" Nartowicz
answered that he had and Downs walked by without
commenting further.
Additionally, on January 12, Gilbert Geiger spoke with
employee Nathan Krinsky. Krinsky credibly testified that
Geiger approached him in the shop and asked the reason
for the union activities. Krinsky answered that he thought
the employees were seeking an increase in wages and
benefits. Geiger responded that the Company accorded the
employees a coffee break which could be taken away from
them and that the Company could ask the employees to
increase their production because no production quotas
had been set. In this regard, Geiger stated that if the
Company were unionized management would ask
employees to increase their production. He also asserted
that the Company could limit the bathroom privileges of
employees."9
Harold Westman testified that on January 12 he spoke
with employees Mary DiRocco, Oresto Mazzucca, and
Mia Nastri and asked each how he or she felt about the
Union.
Employee John Jablonski testified that in January
Geiger approached him and stated that the employees
were thinking about a union and asked Jablonski how he
felt. Jablonski testified that he answered that he had "no
use for unions" because of a prior employment experience.
The conversation terminated on this note.
c. The January wage increase
The Respondent's weekly payroll period runs from
Saturday through the following Friday. The employees
receive their pay on the first Tuesday following the end of
the payroll period. On January 6, 1968, six employees
received wage increases which were reflected in their
paychecks covering the payroll period commencing
January 6. Moreover, one employee received a wage
increase effective January 1 reflected in his paycheck for
January 9; one received a wage increase on January 15
which was reflected in his January 23 paycheck; one
received a wage increase on January 17 which was
reflected in her January 23 paycheck and another
employee received a wage increase on January 19 which
she received in her paycheck of Januar '3.
It is Respondent's practice not to notify employees of
the decision to grant a wage increase and employees
usually become aware of an increase in their hourly rate
when it is reflected in their paycheck. However, the
testimony of John Jablonski, Richard Janiec and Thomas
Gentile establishes that, pursuant to their specific inquiry,
Supervisors Geiger and Downs have informed them of the
decision to grant them wage increases." There is no
evidence to suggest that the six employees who received
"The foregoing is based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Nathan
Krinsky I am convinced that Geiger was not as circumspect in the nuances
and phrasing of his statements to employees as was Downs . This is most
graphically gleaned from the testimony of Echezuna. Also, Krinsky
specifically testified that Geiger did not tell him that the modification in
working conditions which Geiger mentioned in his conversation with him
would result merely by reason of a contract negotiated with the Union.
"Christine Lahti testified she received three increases in pay during her
employment, was informed in advance by Geiger of the last one and was
"almost certain" she had been informed in advance of the other two. It
was not revealed whether or not this information was disclosed to her
pursuant to her inquiry
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wage increases on January 6 to be reflected in the
paycheck of January 16 received advanced notification of
the decision." Harold Westman credibly testified that it
was not his practice to notify employees in advance of the
wage increase granted them and he testified that he
personally did not notify employees of the January
increase. He testified further, however, that it was possible
that his supervisors had advised "one or two" employees
concerning the wage increase and asserted further that if
an employee should ask if a wage increase were imminent
he was told."
d. The March 9 wage increase
On March 9 the 22 employees comprising all of the
production and maintenance employees of Respondent
received a wage increase to be reflected in their paycheck
of March 19. The hourly increase ranged from 5 cents to
25 cents per hour and average approximately 13.5 cent per
hour.
The credited testimony of employee Thomas Gentile
who entered Respondent's employ in April 1967, reveals
that Respondent conducts a semiannual review of wages
at which time employees may meet with supervisory
personnel and participate in a review and evaluation of
their work performance and progress. This semiannual
wage review would, in normal course, have occurred in the
month of March 1968.
3. The discriminatory layoff
a. The layoff of John Echezuria
John Echezuria testified credibly that on January 5 in
the work area of the plant he conversed with Oresto
Mazzucca and informed Mazzucca that he would not be
at work on the following Monday because he had an
executive board meeting of the Union which he was
required to attend in his capacity as recording secretary of
the Local. Gilbert Geiger joined the conversation at this
point. Mazzucca remarked in the presence of Geiger and
Echezuria that Echezuria was able to make money "from
all angles" because he worked at New York Twist Drill,
worked part time at the Company, and was recording
secretary of the Union. Echezuria answered facetiously
that he was secretary-treasurer of Local 868 and had all
of the dues sent to his house. Geiger looked at Echezuria
but said nothing.
On January 9, Echezuria witnessed a mild dispute
between employee George Williams and an office girl
distributing paychecks. As found above, he followed
Williams to the employee restroom and there discussed
with him the advantages of union membership. He gave
"These six employees are Irma Perez, Carmen Perez, Magdalene
Williams, Isabel Salna , Selita Davis , and Frankie Ephraim.
"The General Counsel offered as proof that the employees were given no
notice concerning the pay increases of January 16, a selective portion of
the pretrial affidavit of Harold Westman . The portion read into the record
and relied upon by the General Counsel reads, in part , as follows:
We had a few people for whom wage increases had been approved
before January 11, 1968, and I did not rescind these increases.
These increases became effective on January 6, 1968 but the employees
did not learn about it until January 16, 1968, which was a payday. The
decision was made to grant the raise in the first week in January.
I do not deem this statement to be inconsistent with Westman 's recount of
his own conduct , his generalization covering the possible conduct of his
supervisor or the above finding with respect to the lack of advanced notice
to the six benefactors of the January wage increases.
Williams some authorization cards and urged him to have
employees sign them. Prior to January 9 he had spoken
with five other employees concerning the Union. As
previously found, on the evening of January 9 Echezuria
contacted Union Business Representative Donald
Bruckner and during the ensuing 2 days he distributed
authorization cards, solicited employee signatures and
received cards back from employees. Much of this activity
transpired in the plant.
On the afternoon of January 12, at approximately 2
p.m., when John Echezuria was preparing to leave the
plant at the termination of his workday, he was
approached by Gilbert Geiger who asked him if Charles
Downs had spoken with him. Echezuria answered that
Downs had not and Geiger said, "Well, John, we are
going to lay you off. Business is slow." Echezuria
answered, "I know what you are doing, and I am going to
file an unfair labor practice against you. I think the
company is making its moves." Geiger answered, "Well,
you make your moves and Mr. Westman tells me what to
do. I hope you don't hate me for this." Echezuria left the
plant at this point. He has not been recalled to work.
Upon being laid off, John Echezuria informed Donald
Bruckner of what had transpired. They arranged to meet
and to go together to the company premises for the
purpose of speaking with Harold Westman concerning the
layoff. In due course they did so and during the morning
hours of January 15 they met with Westman in
Westman's office. Bruckner was the principal spokesman
at the meeting and commenced the conversation by
observing that he had assumed from his last meeting with
Westman that the Company and Union were going to sit
down and negotiate a contract. Westman inquired as to
the status of the election and Bruckner stated that there
would be no election until Echezuria had been reinstated
and until Westman told his "two supervisors to quit
threatening and making promises to the people."
Bruckner then asserted that Echezuria had been laid off
because of union activities and further contended that the
layoff was "against the law." Westman replied that he
had laid Echezuria off because of a decline in business and
he further asserted that he had spoken to his supervisors.
Bruckner suggested that Westman bring his two
supervisors into the office and reiterate his instructions in
front of him. Westman declined to do so. The meeting
terminated and Echezuria and Bruckner left the plant.
At approximately 12 noon on January 15, pursuant to
previous arrangements, Echezuria stationed himself
outside the entrance to the plant preparatory to meeting
with George Williams. Echezuria was accompanied by
Donald Bruckner. At approximately 12 o'clock Charles
Downs came out of the plant door and looked around. He
observed Echezuria and Bruckner and they exchanged
greetings. Downs went back into the plant.
Approximately 15 minutes later employee Richard
Hummer came out of the plant and Echezuria asked him
if any of the employees- would be coming out. Hummer
asserted that he did not know and got in his car and drove
away. Subsequently, a coffee wagon arrived at the plant
premises and the horn was sounded and some of the
employees came out of the plant and gathered around the
coffee wagon. Among them were Tony Romagnoli and
George Williams. Echezuria approached them and stated
that he had the business delegate of the Union on hand
and invited them to meet him. George Williams went to
the station wagon where Bruckner was seated and they sat
together and conversed. While they were engaged in
conversation Charles Downs walked by, looked in and
continued on by.
ALL-TRONICS, INC. 651
b. The other layoffs on January 12
In the meantime , on January 12 Geraldine Williams,
Minnie Williams and Jeffrey Batt had been laid off. The
layoff of Minnie Williams and Jeffrey Batt occurred at
the end of the workday on January 12 when they were
informed by Gilbert Geiger that they were being laid off
for lack of work . They were informed that this was a
temporary matter and that they would be recalled when
work picked up.23
The record establishes that on January 17 , Geraldine
Williams was recalled and on January 19 Minnie Williams
was recalled to work.
On June 21 the Respondent sent to Jeffrey Batt the
following telegram which he received:
Contact Mr. Geiger in reference to employement, no
later than 6-25-68.
Batt did not respond to the telegram . Westman testified
that on June 21 an opening in the general assembly
department existed for Batt.
c. The termination of Christine Lahti
Christine Lahti testified credibly that she was absent
from work due to illness from January 15 until January
19. During her absence she made no contact with the
Company but returned to work on Monday, January 22.
Upon reporting to work, she found that her timecard was
not in its usual place in the rack . However , she entered
the plant and in due course she approached Gilbert
Geiger . She observed that her timecard was not in the
rack . Geiger responded , "Oh, didn 't you get a letter in the
mail?" Lahti answered that she had not and Geiger stated,
"I guess you will get it in the mail this afternoon ." Lahti
responded , "Well, I am just as happy." Lahti left the
plant and went home immediately and received the letter
in the afternoon mail. The letter advised her that she had
been terminated.
Lahti had been absent from work due to illness on prior
occasions but these absences had been for 2 or 3 days and
had never encompassed an entire workweek. She had
always, during previous absences , called in at least once to
inform the Company of her illness."'
4. Additional objectionable election conduct
a. The alleged breach of the 24-hour rule
On February 6, an election was conducted in Case
29-RC-933. The consent election agreement executed by
the Company and Union in the representation matter
provided that the election would be conducted between the
hours of 9:30 and 10 a .m. Eight employee witnesses
testified to having attended an informal meeting
"The record contains no evidence with respect to the instructions given
to Geraldine Williams at the time of her layoff on January 12.
"Consideration of Lahti 's testimony on cross-examination , including
statements contained in her pretrial affidavit , reveals that , contrary to her
testimony on direct examination , Lahti had never previously failed to call
the Company to inform management that her absence was due to illness.
Lahti's undenied testimony to the effect that in September 1967, Geiger
notified her of a wage increase and gave as one of the justifications the fact
that she "was always there and ... was always on time" modifies not at
all Lahti's other record testimony to the effect that she had on prior
occasions absented herself from work for 2 or 3 days and had called in to
notify the Company.
conducted on the plant premises wherein Harold Westman
spoke to employees. The employee witnesses variously
placed the meeting as having transpired between the hours
of 8:30 a.m., on the one hand, and between 9:30 a.m. and
10 a.m., on the other. Three witnesses testified with
apparent certitude that the meeting transpired on the day
prior to the October 6 election. Four witnesses were not
certain whether the meeting occurred on the day of the
election or the day previous. One ventured no estimate.
Westman's remarks at the meeting are not alleged as
constituting violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, nor as
warranting, by virtue of their content, setting aside the
election."
5. The decision to lay off
Harold Westman testified that in the late morning
hours of January 12, just prior to the noon hour, he met
with Gilbert Geiger concerning the "production status" of
the Company. That morning he had received records from
his bookkeeper pertaining to production, back log of
orders and profit position which he had translated into
further records maintained in tabular or graphic form.
The data revealed a steep reduction in orders to be filled
and indicated to Westman that there should be a
"cutback" of some personnel.
In meeting with Geiger, Westman stated that an
analysis of the decrease in backlog and the profit picture
he was of the opinion that there would be a decrease in
the volume of work in the future and that a "few people"
should be laid off. In consultation with each other,
Westman and Geiger agreed that four individuals should
be laid off. The decision was made that the layoffs should
be made in the general assembly department and in the
cleaning and machine shop. The determination was made
that the layoffs should be made in inverse order of hire.
Thus, assertedly applying this criteria, John Echezuria was
selected for layoff in the machine shop, Jeffrey Batt was
designated in the general assembly department and Minnie
and Geraldine Williams were selected from the cleaning
department. Geiger was instructed by Westman to
accomplish the layoffs at the close of that day's shift.26
Geraldine and Minnie Williams were called back to
work on January 17 and January 19, respectively. Harold
Westman testified that the need to recall an employee in
the general assembly department arose and that Jeffrey
Batt was sent a telegram instructing him to contact the
Company. He further testified that subsequent to January
12, there has been no need to recall any employee in the
machine shop.
Westman testified that he first learned that John
Echezuria was a "union official" in the late afternoon of
January 12. However, Gilbert Geiger testified that,
without mentioning the name of the union, on either
January 11 or January 12 Charles Downs had informed
him that Echezuria was "a union official."
Harold Westman testified that the records which he
received and upon which he based his decision to
effectuate layoffs, were data relating to production,
backlog of orders and "profit situation." This data is
information which the bookkeeper has, since 1959,
"Colloquy of record amply reveals the limits claimed by the General
Counsel for this evidence. Thus I reject the urgings of the General Counsel
in his brief that the substantive comments of Westman at the meeting,
separate and apart from the timing of the meeting , accord grounds for
setting aside the election.
"This coincided with the end of the Respondent's workweek.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
routinely supplied to Westman within the first 2 weeks
after the end of each month. After receipt of this data, it
is Westman's routine practice to analyze the information
and to prepare records in tabular or graphic form to
service an aid to him in visually determining trends.
One such graph prepared by Westman from data
supplied him by the bookkeeper was a graph relating to
the backlog of filter orders. According to representations
of Respondent, it was upon this information relating to
decline in backlog of orders that the determination was
made to effectuate the layoffs. Westman testified that the
information given him by the bookkeeper, which he
plotted on the graph relating to backlog of filter orders,
revealed a decrease in the total dollar volume of backlog
of "firm orders" from $127,000 at the beginning of
December 1967 to $97,000 at the end of December.
It was stipulated that the dates of entry into
employment of the four employees who were laid off on
January 12 were as follows:
John Echezuria Nov. 10, 1967
Minnie Williams Nov. 28, 1967
Geraldine Williams Nov. 30, 1967
Jeffrey Batt Dec . 8, 1967
Harold Westman testified that the workload varies as
between departments and that as a consequence the
selection of employees for layoff was made on the basis of
departmental workload . He further testified that skills of
the employees were not completely interchangeable as
between departments.
The record establishes that , excluding the four
employees laid off on January 12, the employees last hired
prior to January 12 were as follows:
George Williams Nov. 13, 1967
Selita Davis Nov. 14, 1967
Isabel Salna Dec. 4, 1967
Joseph Secreto Jan. 8, 1968
The record establishes that Isabel Salna was employed
in department 362, the general assembly or production
department.
Conclusions
The Appropriate Unit
The Respondent admits and I find that the following
described collective-bargaining unit is a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent employed at its Westbury plant, exclusive
of all office clerical, sales, professional and technical
employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
The Demand for Recognition
I further find that, on January 11, the Union made a
valid demand for recognition as exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
employed in the above-described appropriate bargaining
unit. In this regard, I find that William Bruckner, a
representative of the Union, made known to Harold
Westman the Union's claim of a majority and described
with sufficient specificity the unit in which the Union
sought recognition and bargaining rights. Bruckner offered
to support his majority claim by submitting the
authorization card upon which were based the Union's
claim of majority to a card check by a neutral third
person.
I also find that the effect of Bruckner's January 11
demand was not dissipated by Bruckner's grant of 4 or 5
days' time to Westman to permit him to weigh or consult
concerning the bargaining demand. Neither was the
effectiveness of the January 11 demand affected by the
Union's filing of the January 12 representation petition.27
The Union's Majority
Additionally, I find that when the Union made its
initial bargaining demand on the morning of January 11,
the Union possessed 15 valid authorization cards of
employees in a unit comprised of 27 employees. Thus, at
the time of the oral demand the Union represented an
uncoerced majority of Respondent's employees. This
majority was augmented later during the day of January
11 when Echezuria came into custody of three additional
valid authorization cards. By letter the Union renewed its
bargaining demand. Nothing in the record suggests that in
executing these cards in the possession of the Union the
signators were not fully aware of the purpose of the card
as expressed to them either by the individual soliciting
their signature or by the unambiguous language contained
on the face of the card which they executed. Specifically I
find that Carmen Perez, whose understanding of English
was not good, learned from her sister and coworkers, the
purpose of the card and the effect of her execution of it.
Specifically, included in my computation of the Union's
majority, are the cards of Richard Hummer and Oresto
Mazzucca by reason of the credited testimony of John
Echezuria revealing that he was present and witnessed
them execute their respective cards.2"
I shall also include in my computation the
authorization cards of Geraldine Williams and Selita
Davis. The record testimony reveals that George Davis
gave blank authorization cards to each of these employees
and, although he did not witness their signature, he
received their cards back from them and transmitted them
to John Echezuria. Echezuria testified convincingly and
without contradiction that when he received these two
cards from George Williams they had been filled out and
that of Geraldine Williams bore a signature in script. The
authorization card of Selita Davis had been filled out and
bore the printed name "Selita Davis" on the signature line
when Echezuria received her card from George Williams.
Under what I deem to be controlling precedent, the chain
of custody is sufficiently established to warrant validation
of these cards.29
I find no warrant for rejecting the authorization card of
Oresto Mazzucca by reason of Echezuria's remarks to
him, made just prior to Mazzucca' s signing of the card, to
the effect that most of the employees "have joined the
union ." There is no significant evidence of record
warranting a conclusion that Mazzucca's signature was
other than voluntary and that Echezuria's representation
caused him to sign his card." Further, in light of the
convincing testimony of Jeffrey Batt at the hearing
concerning the circumstances and timing of his execution
of an authorization card, his card is not invalidated by
reason of his failure to date it.
"See American Compressed Steel Corporation, 146 NLRB 1463,
1470-71, enfd. in pertinent part 343 F.2d 306 (C.A.D.C.).
"See Thrift Drug Company of Pennsylvania, 167 NLRB No. 57.
"McEwen Manufacturing Company and Washington Industries, Inc..
172 NLRB No. 99.
"See I. T. T. Semi-Conductors, Inc.. 165 NLRB No. 98.
ALL-TRONICS, INC.
Interference , Restraint, and Coercion
I further find that, upon being presented with a
bargaining demand by the Union, the Respondent engaged
in unlawful interrogation of employees concerning their
union preferences. Thus, on the day of the demand, and
during the following day, President Westman and his two
principal assistants , made inquiry of a substantial number
of unit employees as to their feelings about the Union.
The activities of assistants Geiger and Downs was at the
specific instruction of Westman. While, under the Act, an
employer faced with a bargaining demand from a labor
organization, may interview and poll employees
concerning their union preference when the interview or
poll is for the specific and exclusive purpose of assisting
the employer to determine the validity of the labor
organization's claim of majority status, these inquiries
must be conducted in a manner which informs the
interviewed employee that his freedom of choice under the
Act in the selection of a bargaining representative is not in
any direct or indirect manner being impinged." Here,
Respondent invoked no safeguards but undertook
undisguised inquiry into the employees' union preferences.
These inquiries alone were sufficient to constitute
violations of the Act, and I so find.
Consistent with the foregoing, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when on January 11
and 12, one or more members of supervision questioned
employees DiRocco, Nastri, Romagnoli, Lahti, Carmen
and Irma Perez, Magdalene Williams, Nartowicz,
Krinsky, Mazzucca, and Jablonski concerning their
feelings concerning the Union."
Moreover, I find violative of the Act, Geiger's assertion
to Echezuria to the effect that because of the Union the
Company would resort to layoffs and limit pay increases,
and Geiger's separate statements to Echezuria and
Krinsky that unionization would bring about more
stringent work discipline.
The Act was not violated however when Mazzucca
volunteered to Geiger that he had signed an authorization
card, nor do I find violative of the Act that portion of
Geiger's January 12 conversation with Krinsky wherein
Geiger stated that the Company could discontinue the
coffee break and limit bathroom privileges. This is so
because in his dispassionate conversation with Krinsky,
Geiger did not project these as inevitable or predicated
eventualities of unionization. In like vein, I find that
Downs did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when he
asserted to Romagnoli that such matters as free coffee,
bathroom privileges and other privileges presently enjoyed
by the employees in the event of unionization would be
subject to negotiation.
To sustain his burden with respect to the wage increases
which were reflected in the paychecks received on January
16, the General Counsel did not undertake to establish by
direct proof when the decision to grant the wage increase
was made. Rather, the General Counsel appears to rely on
an inference to be drawn from evidence purportedly
establishing that the January 16 wage increases received
no advanced notoriety. This, the General Counsel appears
to contend, creates a sufficient inference from which it
may be concluded, as a fact, that the wage increases were
belatedly decided upon as a counteraction to the Union's
organizational effort and demand for recognition on
" See Strucksnes Construction Co.. Inc.. 165 NLRB No. 102.
"The question posed by Downs to George Nartowicz as to whether he
had signed a union card was but a different form of the same inquiry.
653
January 11. The General Counsel asserts that proof of
non-notification is found in the pretrial affidavit admission
of Harold Westman." However, I view the evidence as
permitting no such inference. Rather, the inference to be
drawn from the record as a whole, is that it is not
Respondent's policy to announce wage increases prior to
their accrual in the form of an additional increment of
pay, but that, occasionally, resourceful and inquisitive
employees often seek and receive advance notification. I
am unable to conclude that, merely because no special
undertaking was made to inform employees of the
pendency of the wage increase prior to January 11 when
the Union's demand was articulated, there is no basis for
concluding that an earlier decision, antecedent to the
Union' s organizational efforts, had been reached by
management with respect to the pertinent wage increases.
I find that the record does permit an inference that the
increases had been decided upon prior to the advent of the
Union. Accordingly, with respect to them, I find that the
General Counsel has failed to sustain his burden of proof.
However I am differently disposed with respect to the
grant of wage increases to three employees in mid and late
January after the Union had made its bargaining demand
and during the pendency of the representation election. An
employer is not required to defer or cancel wage decisions
merely by reason of the viability of union activity in his
establishment or the pendency of a representation election
among his employees so long as the wage action is not
designed to influence employees in the choice of
bargaining representatives or serve as an allurement for
employees not to join a union ." There is no evidence here
to reveal that the wage increases here discussed, like the
aforesaid wage increases, had been decided upon when the
Union entered the picture. Neither are they revealed to
fall into the category of increases previously promised or
periodically granted pursuant to a predetermined schedule
or policy."
Accordingly, absent explanatory proof by the
Respondent, I find violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
the wage increases granted three employees effective from
January 15, January 17 and January 19, respectively,
which were reflected in their January 23 paycheck.
The general wage increase granted all production and
maintenance employees in March is governed by the same
principal. In March, when the general increase was
granted, the Respondent had successfully combated the
Union, invoking, in the process, conduct not countenanced
by the Act. Moreover, in the time period that followed, it
had significant stake, as the General Counsel contends,
"in solidifying the nonunion position it had attained," for
there was pending at the time of the wage action,
objections to the election, incorporated in the instant
proceeding, which may have rendered a second election
necessary. In this circumstance, considering the class of
employees affected, the General Counsel adduced prima
"in passing it must be noted that by placing reliance upon the
designated portion of the pretrial affidavit of Harold Westman, the
General Counsel is in the anomalous position of urging the Trial Examiner
to accept only selected portions of a paragraph which he defines as salient,
while ignoring accompanying explanatory statements in the affidavit which
runs strongly counter to the very fact which the General Counsel seeks to
prove by submission of the statement.
"See Derby Coal & Oil Co., Inc., 139 NLRB 1485, 1486; Gary Steel
Products Corporation, 144 NLRB 1160, 1165; N.L.R.B. v. Douglas &
Lomason Co., 333 F.2d 510 (C.A. 8).
"Cf. Briggs IGA Foodliner, 146 NLRB 443; T.L. Lay Packing Co., 152
NLRB 342; Bishop McCormick & Bishop, 102 NLRB 1101, 1102; Derby
Coal & Oil Co.. Inc., supra; Gary Steel Products Corporation. supra.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facie evidence of a violation of the Act. While there is
evidence of record that the general wage increase came at
a time proximate to the semiannual wage review normally
undertaken by Respondent, there is no showing that it was
a product of any such review;` or that it followed previous
established practice; or that it redounded purely from
business motive free from union animous.17
Upon the foregoing considerations, and in light of other
record evidence and findings of unlawful conduct herein, I
conclude and find that the general wage increase granted
in March to all production and maintenance employees in
the unit which the Union sought to represent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.JB
The Alleged Discrimination
Additionally, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act in laying off John Echezuria on the day
following receipt of the Union's demand for recognition
and bargaining. Echezuria was, as the evidence amply
establishes, the principal proponent of the unionization
among the employees. His affiliation with the Union as
well as his incumbency as an officer of the Union, was
known to Gilbert Geiger prior to January 12 when
Respondent asserts the determination to effectuate
Echezuria's layoff was made. While Harold Westman
earnestly contends that he had no knowledge of
Echezuria's union affiliation at the time he made the
decision to lay off Echezuria and other employees, I am
persuaded that his testimony in this regard cannot be
given full credence. The layoff of Echezuria and others
transpired within 24 hours of Westman's receipt of a
demand for recognition by the Union. Bruckner, on behalf
of the Union, had proffered authorization cards to support
his demand and at Westman' s instructions , principal
supervision had undertaken prior to the layoff decision to
interrogate employees concerning their union preferences.
Westman and Geiger must have known when they met
together and consulted concerning the layoffs to be
effected, that the card signing activities had had some
organized direction. In this circumstance, a fair, if not
mandatory inference, to be drawn is that when Geiger and
Westman met on the morning of January 12 and discussed
layoffs, Echezuria's union activities and his official status
with the Union was communicated to Westman by Geiger.
The layoff of Echezuria was decided upon in context of
manifest concern on the part of management over the
effects of unionization and was precipitous in nature.
Thus, the early arrival of Geiger and Downs at the plant
on January 12 and their departure from practice with
respect to opening the plant reveals this concern.
Moreover in their respective conversations with
employees, Supervisors Geiger and Downs not only
undertook to determine whether employees were
disgruntled but they endeavored to disuade employees as
to the value of a union. Geiger did so in a manner
coercive under the Act. The Respondent's avowed reason
"Cf. Aircraft Engineering Corporation , 172 NLRB No. 218.
"Cf. Cromwell Printery Incorporated . 172 NLRB No. 212.
The backlog data in evidence is not determinative , one way or the other,
of the business motive question , but there is clearly no affirmative showing
supportive of the Respondent's wage action.
"See N. L.R.B. v . Exchange Parts Co.. 375 U.S. 405; Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B. (Edro Corp.). 345
F.2d 264 (C.A. 2); The Shelby Manufacturing Company 155 NLRB 464,
473; Admiral Semme Hotel and Motor Hotel 154 NLRB 338, 349-350; cf.
N.L.R.B. v. Ambox , Incorporated , 357 F.2d 137 (C.A. 5); M & W Marine
Ways, Inc., 165 NLRB No. 24.
for laying off a known leading union advocate, in these
circumstances, requires close scrutiny.
The Respondent's explanation of its motivating reasons,
for effecting the layoff of John Echezuria is not
convincing. While I accept as factual Harold Westman's
testimony that the data revealing the severe December
decline in the backlog of filter orders came into his
possession on the morning of January 12, there is strong
reason for inferring that, by reason of Westman's
familiarity with all facets of the operations of his
Company, the data disclosed expected trends. It is true
that, the December decline was a substantial one and
there is no counterveiling evidence of record to establish
that a reduction in force would not have been a prudent
economic counteraction to the reduced backlog. However,
it is to be remembered that two of the four employees laid
off on January 12 were recalled to work within a matter
of a few days, even though the elapsed time between their
layoff and recall had manifestly been too brief to enable
Westman to have detected a meaningful improvement in
the trend of the backlog of filter orders. The Respondent
undertook no explanation of why it so quickly recanted
from the layoff. As a consequence, the purported
economic motivation for the January , 12 layoffs
immediately becomes suspect.
Close scrutiny of the record evidence reveals that from
April through September 1967, the on-balance backlog of
filter orders steeply declined. During this period of time
no layoffs were effectuated. If normal attrition had made
layoffs during this period unnecessary, or if the level of
backlog in filter orders during the 1967 period had
remained at a level sufficient not to require layoffs, it is
not shown by evidence adduced by the Respondent. The
conclusion reasonably to be drawn from the record
evidence is that the January 12 layoffs were a departure
from normal personnel practices of the Respondent and
this becomes a further consideration casting doubt upon
the legitimacy of Respondent's actions.
The Respondent contends that the layoff of John
Echezuria resulted from an evenhanded application of
layoff criteria based on departmental seniority. However,
the convincing evidence of record is to the effect that the
departmental designations were aids to bookkeeping and
accounting practices and defined no work jurisdiction or
boundaries in Respondent's integrated work operation.
Thus, Echezuria, a part time employee, like other part
time employees, Thomas Gentile and Richard Janiec.,
during his tenure of employment performed a variety of
jobs classified as general production or capacitor winding
operations. Accordingly, I am convinced that the
designation of Echezuri a as a machine shop employee was
an artificial one, and Respondent's insistence upon
treating him as exclusively a machine shop employee arose
not out of an accurate description of his actual job
assignment but from an effort to lend plausibility to its
selection of him for lay off. As against the record
testimony revealing that Echezuria worked a substantial
portion of his time outside the machine shop during his
relatively brief tenure, the timecards upon which
Echezuria conceded he entered the departmental
designation number of the machine shop, are insufficient
to establish, as a fact, that Echezuria was a machine shop
employee, and was considered to be such by management.
In any event, as an assessment of motive, the alleged
departmental placement of Echezuria loses much of its
significance and the Respondent's contention that the
layoffs were effected in inverse order of departmental
seniority becomes suspect, when it is considered that
ALL-TRONICS, INC.
Minnie Williams was laid off even though Isabel Salna
had less seniority in the cleaning department than did
Minnie Williams.
Further , evidence tending to establish the
discriminatory nature of Echezuria 's layoff is the failure
of Geiger during his lengthy discussion with Echezuria on
the morning of his layoff, to mention the pendency of the
layoff; and Geiger 's statement to Echezuria at the time he
informed Echezuria of his layoff that he hoped Echezuria
would not "hate him" for the action . It seems apparent
that , in light of the extended nature of the conversation
between Echezuria and Geiger on the morning of the
layoff, if the layoff had had legitimate economic
foundations Geiger would have made some reference to
the decision which had been made and which so
immediately affected Echezuria . Similarly , Geiger's
solicitation of Echezuria ' s understanding and indulgence
over the layoff implies that the layoff was accomplished
for reasons other than that stated to Echezuria.
In sum , I find that, faced with a union demand for
recognition , Westman seized upon the steep decline of
backlog in filter orders as a pretext for removing from his
employment John Echezuria , the leading proponent of
unionization among the employees . Echezuria was
selected , I am convinced , to chill and defeat the
unionization effort of employees . His selection for layoff
and Respondent 's subsequent failure to recall him violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
I further find that, as an inseparable element of that
discriminatory scheme , and to cloak its unlawful action,
Respondent laid off Geraldine Williams, Minnie Williams
and Jeffrey Batt using the decline in backlog of filter
orders as - a pretext. The brevity of the layoff of both
Geraldine and Minnie Williams, and their recall before
sufficient time had elapsed to enable Westman to guage
any improved backlog trend and before more recent data
had come into Westman's possession ," reveals the
pretextual nature of Respondent's conduct . The inference
is strong that Respondent abstained from recalling Batt
because to do so would be too patently revealing of the
nature of its discriminatory design and would leave the
union activist Echezuria alone as the only deposed
employee.
It is significant that Batt , Minnie Williams and
Geraldine Williams had all signed union authorization
cards , and in the environment of interrogation and open
discussion of unionization which prevailed at the plant at
the time of the layoffs , there is strong reason for
concluding that the union propensities of the laid off
employees was known to management. But in any regard,
the effectuation of these layoffs within a day of the
Union' s demand , and their interrelationship to the
discriminatory layoff of Echezuria establishes the presence
of union animous . Moreover , the Respondent had
previously shown restraint in its resort to layoffs and, so
far as Harold Westman could recall , had resorted to them
only incident to a destructive fire in November 1966. I
find that the layoffs were discriminatory and accomplished
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
On the other hand , while the termination of Christine
Lahti creates a suspicious circumstance, I am unable to
conclude that the evidence preponderates in favor of a
finding favorable to the General Counsel . The record
amply establishes Lahti's discharge occurred after she had
absented herself from work without notifying the
"In any event the backlog of filter orders continued its downward spiral
throughout January, and beyond.
655
Company or offering any explanation for her absence.
Moreover , she had displayed a marked tendency to be
absent from her work station for smoking and personal
reasons, as is revealed by the conversation which she had
with Downs in December , nearly a month prior to her
discharge , and before the advent of the Union . Thus, she
could not be said to have been a model employee in terms
of work performance . While the Respondent had
permitted a certain degree of latitude on the part of Lahti
and other employees in taking days off, there is nothing of
record to suggest that it had ever countenanced
unexplained absenteeism or that Lahti had ever absented
herself for an entire workweek . Clearly Respondent was
justified in discharging Lahti and the only question is
whether there is sufficient evidence from which it may
reasonably be inferred that , absent union considerations,
Lahti ' s week long absence would have been condoned. I
find that there is not. Lahti ' s admission to supervision
that she had signed a union card and Respondent's
manifest hostility to the -Union must be taken into
account, as must Geiger's statement to Echezuria that a
union could bring about a cessation of Respondent's
liberalism in permitting employees to take days off and
come in late . But Geiger's comment may not reasonably
be construed as relating to prolonged , unexplained
absences of the variety of Lahti's, and the absence of
Lahti was so presumptious and of such duration as to
render too conjectural a determination that in other than
an organizational atmosphere Lahti's employment status
would have been left undisturbed. In the circumstances, I
shall dismiss the allegations of the complaint pertaining to
the termination of Christine Lahti.
The Good -Faith Doubt
In context of Respondent ' s unlawful interrogation into
the union preferences of its employees and the
accompanying discriminatory discharge of Echezuria and
unlawful layoff of three employees , I reject Respondent's
contention that it was motivated by a good-faith doubt of
the Union ' s majority in refusing to honor the Union's
demand for recognition and bargaining . The conduct of
Respondent immediately subsequent to the Union's
demand was clearly designed to dissipate the Union's
claimed majority , and warrants the conclusion that
Respondent's failure to accord the Union recognition
arose not out of any doubt as to its majority status but to
enable the Respondent to gain time to defeat the Union.
The grant of a wage increase , as found , to three
employees , in January , within a week after the Union's
demand , was in furtherance of this design . It is no defense
to such a finding that the Respondent on January 17
consented to a Board election . This is so because by then
the Respondent had chilled the union effort and created a
coercive environment . "Certainly it is not one of the
purposes of the election provisions [of the Act] to supply
an employer with a procedural device by which he may
secure the time necessary to defeat efforts toward
organization being made by a union."40
It is well established that an employer may decline to
recognize the union on the basis of proffered cards and
may insist upon a Board -conducted election as a means of
determining the wishes of his employees if his actions are
motivated by a good-faith doubt of the union 's majority."
The only evidence of record from which it may be
"See Joy Silk Mills v. N L.R.B, 185 F.2d 732 (C.A.D C)
" See Aaron Brothers Company of California, 158 NLRB 108.
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concluded that Respondent gained some insight into the
union preferences of his production and maintenance
employees is garnered from the testimony of record
revealing that supervision undertook a systematic
interrogation of employees concerning their union desires.
The record evidence reveals that some few employees
avowed their opposition to unionization. The Respondent,
at the hearing, undertook no more specific definition of
the degree or numerical extent of this communicated
opposition. Moreover, it may be speculated whether an
employer would be warranted in placing reliance upon
expressions of preference conveyed by employees subjected
to such supervisory confrontation.
In light of the modicum of evidence tending to reveal
the existence of a good-faith doubt, and in view of the
abundant evidence of record establishing Respondent's
bad-faith rejection of the Union's card-supported
bargaining demand, I conclude and find that Respondent's
refusal to recognize and bargain collectively with the
Union on and after January 11, violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act."
IV. THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION
Initially, the evidence adduced by the General Counsel
with respect to the alleged violation of the 24-hour rule
fails to sustain the objection upon which it is based. The
testimony of the General Counsel' s witnesses concerning
this meeting was such as to preclude a definitive
determination of precisely when the meeting transpired.
As the evidence considered as a whole is as consistent with
a determination that the meeting transpired on the day
prior to the election and more than 24 hours before the
commencement of the election, I shall overrule this
objection to the conduct of the election.
The General Counsel contends, however, that the
unlawful conduct of the Respondent violative of Section
8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act warrants setting aside the
results of the election. Having found that the Respondent
engaged in unlawful interrogation and threats on January
12, the day on which the representation petition was filed,
and having further found that the Respondent unlawfully
granted selective wage increases during the period
preceding the representation election, I find that the
General Counsel's contention must be sustained. The
Board has consistently held that conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) is, a fortiori conduct which interferes with
the free and untrammeled choice of an election. Dal Tex
Optical Company Incorporated, 137 NLRB 1782. The
aforesaid unlawful conduct may have affected the free
choice of employees in the February 7 election, and their
freedom of choice was additionally inhibited by the
unlawful layoff which were effectuated on January 12, the
day upon which the representation petition was filed, and
which in two instances, were perpetuated throughout the
period thereafter. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the
election be set aside. However, in view of my further
recommendation that, in order to adequately remedy the
unfair labor practices found herein, the Respondent be
ordered to bargain with the Union, upon request, I shall
recommend that the petition in Case 29-RC-933 be
dismissed and that all proceedinfs held in connection
therewith be vacated and set aside.'
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by laying off Geraldine Williams and
Minnie Williams I shall recommend that Respondent
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered because of the discrimination against them, by
payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which
they normally would have been paid in Respondent's
employ from the date of their respective layoffs to the
date of their respective reinstatement, less their net
earnings, if any, during said period. Additionally, having
further found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act by laying off and failing to reinstate Jeffrey Batt
and John Echezuria, I shall further recommend that
Respondent offer each of them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
position of employment, and make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered because of the
discrimination against them, by payment to them of a
sum of money equal to that which they would normally
have been paid in Respondent's employ from the date of
their layoff to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less their net earnings, if any, during said
period. Loss of pay for each of the aforesaid four
employees shall be computed upon a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board 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.
I specifically conclude and find that Respondent failed
to proffer to Jeffrey Batt unconditional reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position of
employment by its June 21 telegram to Batt. The telegram
merely instructed Batt to contact Respondent "in
reference to employment" and did not define the nature of
the employment, if any, which would be the subject of
Batt's inquiry. Well established is the principal that,
"where employees have been discriminatorily separated
from their jobs, the Employer' s intention to offer him
reinstatement is no substitute for the actual making of
such an offer." See Crown Handbag of California, 137
NLRB 1162, 1164. Only when an employee who has been
discriminatorily separated from his job is offered
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position of employment is an employer relieved of his
duty to reinstate. Crown Handbag of California, supra.
Respondent's June 21 telegram did not relieve it of its
responsibility under the Act to make an unconditional
"Joy Silk Mills Inc , 85 NLRB 1263 , enfd . in relevant part 185 F 2d 752
(C A D C.), cert denied 341 U S. 914; Noma Liles Corp, 170 NLRB 142,
cf Aaron Brothers Company of California, supra; N L R B v River Togs,
Inc, 382 F 2d 198 (C A. 2)
"Berne! Foam Products, Co, Inc, 146 NLRB 1277; Northwest
Engineering Company, 148 NLRB 1136, 158 NLRB 624, Irving Air Chute
Co, Inc, Marathon Division v N L R B. 350 F 2d 176 (C A 2)
ALL-TRONICS, INC.
offer of reinstatement to Jeffrey Batt. See Laminating
Services, Inc., 167 NLRB No. 32; Leeding Sales Co.,
Inc., 155 NLRB 755; cf. Kenny Construction Company of
Illinois 143 NLRB 1260, 1264, 1267; Ertel Manufacturing
Corp., 147 NLRB 312, 332-333. The implications, if any,
upon Batt's continued availability for employment by
Respondent on and after June 21, deriving from his failure
to respond to the June 21 telegram may be explored at the
compliance stage of this proceeding.
Having found that Respondent has refused, and
continues to refuse, to bargain with the Union in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and, upon request, bargain
with the designated representative of the employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All-Tronics, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Local 868, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
3. In laying off Magdalene Williams, Minnie Williams,
Jeffrey Batt and John Echezuria Respondent engaged in
discriminatory conduct in violation Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
4. By interrogating its employees concerning their union
activities, by granting selective wage increases to three
employees in January 1968, after the Union had filed a
representation petition; by threatening employees with a
resort to layoffs, a limitation upon pay increases and
imposition of more stringent work discipline should the
employees select the Union as their bargaining
representative, and by granting a unilateral wage increase
in March to all production and maintenance employees
the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By interfering with employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, as alleged,
inter alia , by the Union in its objections to the conduct
affecting the results of the election, the Employer
improperly affected the results of the February 6, 1968,
election.
6. At all times material since on and after January 11,
1968, Local 868, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America has been, and now is, the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of a majority of the
Respondent's employees in a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
7. The following described collective-bargaining unit is
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent employed at its Westbury plant, exclusive
of all office clerical, sales , professional and technical
employees, watchmen, guards and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
8. By refusing, on and after January 11, 1968, to
bargain collectively with Local 868, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all its employees in an
appropriate collective-bargaining unit, Respondent has
657
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
10. The Respondent did not violate the Act by
discharging Christine Lahti or in any manner not
specifically found herein.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
I recommend that All-Tronics, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activities; threatening employees with more stringent work
discipline, limitation upon pay increases, and a resort to
layoffs in the event the employees should choose a union
as their collective-bargaining representative; and
unlawfully granting selective and general wage increases
for the purpose of undermining the Union.
(b) Discouraging membership of any employee in Local
868, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization of their own
choosing, by laying off employees or discriminatorily
failing to recall employees from layoff, or in any like or
related manner discriminating against any employee with
regard to his hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment, except as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the right to
self-organization, to form their own labor organization, to
join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively with representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or for 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
agreements requiring membership in a labor organization
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 868,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the following described
appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent employed at its Westbury plant, exclusive
of all office clerical, sales, professional and technical
employees, watchmen, guards and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer John Echezuria and Jeffrey Batt immediate
reinstatement to the positions which they held at the time
of their respective layoffs, without prejudice to their rights
and privileges of employment, and make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make whole Magdalene Williams and Minnie
Williams for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of their discriminatory layoffs, in the manner set
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
National Labor Relations Board , or its agents , all records
necessary for the computation of backpay which may be
due under the Recommended Order.
(d) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees
in the unit found appropriate with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment.
(e) Post at its Westbury, Long Island , New York,
plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notice , on forms to be provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, shall, after being duly
signed , be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by
any other material.
(1) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing , within 20 days from the service of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the election held on February
6, 1968 , in Case 29-RC-933 be set aside , and that all prior
proceedings held thereunder be vacated and set aside.
"In the event that this Recommended Ordei be adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words, "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by a decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event this Recommended Order 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 therewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their union activities or preferences.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with more
severe work discipline; with a limitation upon the
frequency of pay increases; or a resort to layoffs
because of their selection of a labor organization to act
as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully grant wage increases to our
employees for the purpose of interfering with their
rights to join or belong to a union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
collectively , upon request , with Local 868, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as
the exclusive representative of our employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment , and other terms and conditions
of employment . The appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of
All-Tronics , Inc., employed at its Westbury plant,
exclusive of all office clerical, sales , professional and
technical employees , watchmen , guards and all
supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT lay off employees because of their
union or concerted activities , or fail to recall from
layoff employees because of such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named Union or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL make Jeffrey Batt, John Echezuria,
Magdalene Williams, and Minnie Williams whole for
any loss of earnings that they may have suffered as a
result of their respective layoffs and our discrimination
against them.
WE WILL offer Jeffrey Batt and John Echezuria
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions of employment , without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges enjoyed by them.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively with
Local 868, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit, with respect to
the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
All of our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the
above-named organization , or any other labor
organization.
ALL-TRONICS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 16 Court Street,
Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone
212-596-5387.