Bev Cal Optical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 1287 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

BEV CAL OPTICAL CO. 1287
It is clear from the foregoing that the students involved herein are
-temporary or casual employees hired for a definite limited period and
without reasonable expectancy of retention or later recall 2 It is also
clear, and we find, that neither the certified- unit nor the unit covered
by the most recent contract specifically includes such employees. In
the 'circumstances, as the Board does not, absent agreement of the
parties, include temporary or casual employees in bargaining units,
we find that the summer students here in issue are not part of the
existing unit. We shall, therefore, reverse the Acting Regional
Director's Decision and grant the petition for clarification as requested
by the Employer.
Accordingly, we shall clarify the existing unit by excluding there-
from students hired on a temporary basis during their summer
vacations.3
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certification heretofore issued in the
above-captioned proceeding be, and it hereby is, clarified by specifically
excluding therefrom all students temporarily employed during the
summer vacation period.
n See Pacific Tile and Porcelain Company, 137 NLRB 1358 , 1365; and cases cited therein.
$ See Recipe Food8, Inc., 145 NLRB 924.
Bev Cal Optical Co. and Optical Workers Organizing Committee
Jewelers' Union, Local 23, International Jewelry Workers
Union , AFL-CIO and Our Own Union . Case No. 31-CA-47 (for-
merly 21-CA-6510). March 31, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 24,1965, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
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 Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision together with a memorandum in support
of the exceptions, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order.'
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
1 The General Counsel's cross-exceptions are limited to the Trial Examiner's finding
regarding Our Own Union.
157 NLRB No. 102.
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 memorandum, the cross-
exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the modifications noted below.2
[The Board adopted the Recommended Order of the Trial Exam-
iner with the following modifications :
[1. Amend paragraph 1(a) as follows:
[" (a) Dominating or interfering with the formation or administra-
tion of The Committee or any other collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees."
[2. Amend paragraph 1(c) by changing the period to a comma and
thereafter adding the following :
["except to the extent that such right may, be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959."
[3. Amend the first indented paragraph of the notice as follows :
[WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or
administration of The Committee (a collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of our employees) or any other collective-bargaining
representai ive of our employees.
[4. Amend the second and four indented paragraphs of the notice,
by changing the periods to commas and adding to both paragraphs
the following :
[, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the,
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.]
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did in fact dominate and
interfere with the formation of The Committee , a labor organization , and thereby violated
Section $(a) (1) and ( 2) of the Act . However , in view of the entire record, and par-
ticularly the unrefuted testimony of employee Lehmkuhl , we do not infer, as did the
Trial Examiner, that Respondent also rendered financial support to The Committee by
paying the monetary expenses in connection with the employees ' visit to a lawyer for
advice about the formation of a labor organization . Thus, the record shows that there
was no mention of a fee being charged for the visit and that the employees did not
receive funds from the Respondent for this purpose . Moreover, Lehmkuhl also testified
that, during the conference in question , the lawyer told the group that with respect to
payment for the advice received , "everybody was on the cuff at the time."
BEV CAL OPTICAL CO. 1289
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a case under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as-
amended , 29 U.S.C. sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act. Upon a charge filed by
the Optical Workers Organizing Committee of the Jewelers' Union , Local 23, affili-
ated with the International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the-
Union, on February 25, 1965, a complaint was issued on May 17, 1965, alleging that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Pursuant to notice , a hearing
was held before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway, on September 1, 1965, at Los
Angeles, California.
Issues
1. Whether or not Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and.
administration of a labor organization.
2. Whether or not Respondent interrogated employees , made threats, and offered
a pension plan to dissuade employees from becoming or remaining members of the
Union or giving assistance or support to it.
From my observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I-
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly orga-
nized , and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of California . At all times mate-
rial herein , Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business at.
1701 Colorado Avenue, in the city of Santa Monica, State of California, and is, and
has been at all times material herein , engaged at said location in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of optical products . During the calendar year 1964 Respond-
ent, in the course and conduct of its business operation , manufactured , sold, and dis-
tributed products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped from its principal
office and place of business directly to customers in States of the United States other
than the State of California. The Respondent 's answer admits and I find that Re-
spondent is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees within the-
jewelry and optical industry, including employees of Respondent . Our Own Union,
is not the name of a formally organized union . As is explained hereinafter , a union
composed of employees of Respondent was proposed but did not come into existence
as a labor organization . A bargaining committee formed in lieu of said employees'
union , is a labor organization representing employees for purposes of bargaining.
collectively with Respondent . For purposes of identification and certainty , this com-
mittee will sometimes be designated herein as The Committee.
A. Dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of a union
1. The facts
In early January 1965, Oscar Fuss, the Union' s business manager, telephoned
Bard with reference to the Union's objective of organizing Respondent 's employees.
In this conversation , Bard asked that the Union "lay off" the Respondent until it
had organized some of the Respondent's competitors who apparently were giving the
Respondent trouble with low prices , particularly those in Texas . Fuss told Bard
that the Union had no jurisdiction in Texas, that he had heard that wages in the Los
Angeles area were low, and that the Union wished to raise these wages and would
continue to organize . He also told Bard that he hoped everything would be kept
aboveboard. The date of the conversation between Bard and Fuss is not too clear,
but Fuss fixed the date of his conversation with Bard as in the first week in January
1965.
Before January 15, 1965, employee Daryl Lehmkuhl spoke with President Bard
about forming an organization of Respondent 's employees designed to exclude out-
side organizations . Bard approved . At noon on January 15, during the lunch period,
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lehmkuhl and Foreman Purvis 1 called to the employees of the surfacing and bench
rooms to assemble for a meeting. Most of the employees ate their lunch at the 10:30
a.m. break and then spent their noon lunch period on the parking lot or driving, to
the beach.2 Lehmkuhl testified that "we shut the doors and caught them at the lunch
period to go punch out and go back to the surface room." He testified that he and
Purvis stood by the doorway. The purpose of the meeting was to "find out how many
employees would be interested in an organization." Purvis told the assembled
employees that an attempt was being made to organize the employees and that, if
they wished, they could form their own union and perhaps get better benefits than
an outside organization would. Lehmkuhl said that there would be no dues for their
own union. Lehmkuhl and Purvis had with them a "petition" headed with a state-
ment reading approximately as follows: "We the undersigned employees of Bev Cal
Optical Co., wish to form our own union." 3 Lehmkuhl testified that he had "got up"
the petition but that the handwritten introduction was not in his handwriting. "Some-
one else wrote it. I don't know; one of the girls around the plant. I just had them
write it for me. My handwriting is bad .... It was a clerical employee." He did
not remember the name of the girl but "... it may have been my wife," who works
there .4 Purvis told the employees that there was a paper there to sign if they wished
to have a company union. Then he put it on a desk and was, himself, the first to
sign . Lehmkuhl signed next. A majority of the employees then signed their names.
It was later circulated among the few employees who had not been at the meeting.
Following this meeting, Lehmkuhl reported the results to Bard and asked Bard's
assistance in the formation of an employees' union. Bard told Lehmkuhl that he
would have to seek advice, himself, before he could advise Lehmkuhl. Bard testified
that he went to two attorneys, including his own, and that both attorneys had told him
he could not assist in the formation of a union.
A few days later, at 5 p.m., Manager-Supervisor Robert Ellett, Foreman Purvis,
Lehmkuhl, and another employee named Gordon Faber 5 met at the office of an
attorney in Beverly Hills (whose name and address none of the last three named wit-
nesses could remember) and told the lawyer they were interested in forming an
employees' union and asked how to go about it. Ellett did not testify. The other
three employees testified that they did not know how the arrangements had been
made with this attorney. Bard testified that he had heard that some attorney had
called Faber up and asked for him by name and had made the arrangements through
Faber. Faber, however, testified that he was not sure who had invited him to go to
the lawyer's office but that he thought it might have been Ellett who had asked him
if he wanted to go. Purvis testified that he "thought" the lawyer had told him that
he, as foreman, was not supposed to be involved. Lehmkuhl remembered that the
lawyer told them that management should not be a part of the organization. Whether
or not because of the interest of Ellett and Purvis, or because the lawyer had told
the group that the cost of organizing a union would be several thousand dollars, the
idea of forming the previously proposed inside union was not acted on. On the way
back from the lawyer's office there was discussion of the selection of a committee
to represent the employees.
Following their visit to the attorney's office, Lehmkuhl and Faber made no detailed
report to the other employees. Lehmkuhl told Paul Brewer, an employee, that he had
been to see a lawyer and that the lawyer had "turned it down." Soon after the visit
to the lawyer's office, in the third week in January 1965, and during working hours,
Lehmkuhl asked Brewer, in the benchroom, to go around and ask the rest of the
employees in the benchroom if they would be willing to have Lehmkuhl and Faber
as their representatives. Brewer understood that this was to be a committee of the
employees' union . He got the approval of the other employees, and Lehmkuhl
arranged with the surface room to select two employees as their representatives.6
1 Purvis was foreman of the benchroom Robert Penrose, foreman of the surface
roonf, was apparently not involved in these activities.
2 This explains, I believe, why the witness Brewer mistakenly fixed the time of the
meeting as in the afternoon after lunch.
8 This is based on testimony of Bard. Respondent had possession of this petition at
the time of the hearing but would not produce it, giving a reason for its refusal which
I consider specious and unconvincing.
I Lehmkuhl's testimony was replete with expressions of "possibilities," uncertainty,
and other vague expressions which I took to be designed to avoid revelation of all he
knew and could remember.
5 Lehmkuhl and Faber were both layout men in the benchrooms.
6 The surface room selected Robert Androy and Bill McClendon. They did not testify.
BEV CAL OPTICAL CO. 1291
The four employees chosen as committeemen met at the house of one of them a few
days later to discuss wages, vacations, and other benefits that the employees were
'concerned with receiving. Faber testified that they discussed what the employees
thought was fair in the way of wages and vacations and wrote out the "consensus."
However, both Faber and Lehmkuhl testified that The Committee never brought this
to the attention of management. Asked why The Committee had not met with man-
agement about the subject of their discussions, Faber (although he had earlier
testified to the consensus which had been reduced to writing) testified that The Com-
mittee could never get together on what to ask for. No meeting of the employees
was held to report any action of The Committee. If any employees asked, they were
told.
At the time when the talk about a union was going on, Foreman Penrose of the
surface department was terminated and Purvis was transferred to that department as
foreman. As nearly as I can determine, this was in early February. At the same
time, Lehmkuhl was made foreman of the benchroom. Lehmkuhl and Faber each
got raises of $10 a week.? There is no evidence that any other wage increases were
given. According to Brewer, Lehmkuhl told him in January that he had been
offered a wage increase because of the fact that he was a committeeman.
In late January or early February, an attorney by the name of Glasser, from Chi-
cago, described by Brewer as an attorney for Bard, spoke to the employees at the
plant and described a pension plan which he said had been under study for at least
3 months and which was to take effect in June. Some of the witnesses spoke of this
as a profit-sharing plan, but it was conceded that by either name it was the same
thing.
2. Conclusions
It is obvious that the Respondent took more than a casual interest in the formation
of an employees ' organization designed to exclude the Union or any other outside
union . Although Lehmkuhl was not a foreman at the time that he participated in
the activity toward forming an inside union, he first consulted with President Bard
and received his approval to the formation of such an organization, he and Foreman
Purvis assembled the employees and suggested the formation of an employees inde-
pendent union, giving them the belief that they might do better with such an organiza-
tion than they would through an outside organization, Purvis got the employees to
sign up for approval of an inside union, setting an example by signing first, himself,
and Lehmkuhl received assistance in the making of an appointment with a lawyer
to discuss the formation of an inside union, two of the three who visited the attor-
ney's office with him being supervisors. It is also significant that soon after the time
when this activity took place Lehmkuhl not only received an increase in wages, but
also was appointed foreman of the benchroom. The only evidence that any other
increase was given about this time was that of the increase to Faber, another
member of The Committee, who also received a $10 a week increase.
The evidence is not entirely clear as to whether or not The Committee, which
included Lehmkuhl and Faber, was actually an extension of the original employees'
union or whether it was a substitute therefore. Brewer apparently thought it was
a committee of the employees' union. My deduction is that The Committee was
designed to be an alternate course rather than a part of the proposed employees'
union for after the meeting with the lawyer, Lehmkuhl had told Brewer that he and
Faber and Purvis had gone to see the lawyer to see about forming a union and that
the labor attorney had turned it down. Faber testified that they dropped the idea of
a union , and Lehmkuhl testified that the subject of a committee was discussed on
the way back from the lawyer's office. Although Purvis, Lehmkuhl, and Faber
professed lack of memory of the name and address of the attorney and details of what
they were told by the attorney, Lehmkuhl did remember that the attorney had told
them that no members of management should be involved in the formation of a
union, and after that, Purvis testified, he "dropped out." Lehmkuhl described The
Committee as a bargaining committee "if we ever needed one." Since neither of
the nonsupervisory employees who were interested in an employees' union had any
knowledge of how the arrangements were made for the appointment with the lawyer,
since Purvis testified that he did not know whose idea it was, and since Lehmkuhl
had sought Bard's advice and had been told by Bard that he would seek the advice of
an attorney, it is inferable that the arrangements with the Beverly Hills attorney had
been made on the initiative of Bard with the assistance of Manager Ellett, who did
not testify. Although the evidence does not show the amount of any monetary
expense incurred by Respondent, it does show that, on behalf of the dominated
7 Faber testified that he received the raise as a result of having asked Ellett for it.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization , Bard consulted attorneys for advice. It is also inferable that such
consultation resulted in the appointment with the attorney who met with Ellett,
Purvis, Lehmkuhl, and Faber. The employees did not pay for any legal services.
'It is not to be presumed that attorneys render services gratuitously.
Although an employees' union, as such, never took form, never adopted a consti-
-tution or bylaws, and never elected officers, the Respondent, through its supervisors,
proposed such organization and gave impetus toward the creation of it by arranging
for legal counsel. The bargaining committee which was selected after the meeting
with the lawyer derived from the advice of such lawyer whose services were arranged
for by Respondent. Because The Committee resulted from the same movement as
that which prompted the initial attempt to promote an inside union, I find that it was
-spawned by the same influences. In view of this, I consider it immaterial that the
complaint alleged domination and interference with the formation of "Our Own
Union" rather than with the formation of The Committee. Neither was a name
formally adopted by the employees, yet both were conceived and promoted through
,the same efforts. The Committee was to all intents and purposes a successor or
.altered form of the inside union designated by the complaint as Our Own Union.
The employees, at least, were never notified of the difference.
The Committee never demonstrated that it was free from the influence which
,induced its creation. The fact that The Committee never bargained with manage-
ment is not enough to free it of Respondent's initial influence. Nor does it demon-
strate that The Committee became defunct. The Respondent's timely announcement
of a pension plan may have been expected to temper any ardor the employees might
have had for union representation and rendered an active committee unnecessary.
The failure of an employer-dominated labor organization to bargain with the domi-
nating employer, so far from demonstrating that such organization is defunct, demon-
strates no more than that employer is in a position to activate the dominated orga-
-nization or induce torpor at will, depending on whether it appears desirable at any
given moment to counteract a revival of organization by a bona fide labor organiza-
tion or on whether it appears safe to let sleeping dogs lie. Thus, the Respondent
-would still be in control of The Committee through the offices of Lehmkuhl, now a
foreman, who has not been shown to have resigned from his position on The Com-
mittee when he was promoted. But even if The Committee were, in fact, defunct,
-the employees apparently have never been so informed. They were not, so far as
the evidence goes, even informed that The Committee was distinct from the inside
union which Foreman Purvis had induced them to approve.
On all the evidence, I conclude and find that Respondent has dominated and inter-
fered with the formation of a labor organization and has contributed financial sup-
,port thereto by arranging for legal counsel at no expense to the employees.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Brewer testified that in the last of January 1965, he encountered President Bard at
the drinking fountain and that Bard had said that he understood Brewer had had a
union representative at his home. Bard told Brewer that he had the right to vote
-whichever way he wished and then told him that his office was open to talk if he
-wanted to come in. Brewer went to Bard's office and discussed Hughes, the Union's
representative, who had been to Brewer's home. Bard made reference to his earlier
-conversation with Hughes. Brewer testified, "Well, he said that he knew Mr. Hughes,
and that he [Hughes] had worked for him [Bard] before, that he [Bard] was a very
good friend of Mr. Hughes; but he [Hughes] was trying to organize the company. I
thought that there was nothing wrong with that, but he [Bard] made the funny state-
ments which I am still trying to figure out why he made this statement. He said there
is liable to be trouble." Brewer then amended the word "trouble" to "bloodshed."
Bard testified that Brewer had misunderstood what he had said. He explained that on
the preceding Friday night, Hughes had telephoned Bard and had later come to talk
-with him. Bard testified that Hughes had told him that he thought he would be able
to sign up a certain number of employees with the Union and that he was afraid that
-there was another group of people in the plant that were so opposed to unionism that
it might result in violence, and that Bard, in his conversation with Brewer had merely
'repeated what Hughes had told him. Bard's explanation was plausible and credible,
and I find that Bard did not, himself, make a threat of bloodshed or violence.
Although I find that Bard did not threaten Brewer with any violence, I find that his
statement to Brewer about understanding that Brewer had had a union organizer at his
home in an attempt to elicit information on Brewer's attitude toward the Union.
However, inasmuch as Bard, at the same time, assured Brewer of his right of choice
(right to vote as he saw fit) I make no finding of a violation of the Act by the Respond-
ent through this act of Bard.
BEV CAL OPTICAL CO. 1293
The pension plan offered by the Respondent may have been under contemplation
before the Union's organizing campaign. Purvis testified that the Respondent had
been working on this for at least a year and that there was a notice concerning it
posted on the bulletin board 4 to 6 months before January 1965. The notice was not
produced. Yet the Chicago attorney, who announced the plan, mentioned only 3
months' consideration. He also said that a brochure would be prepared for the
employees to explain the plan. The fact that brochures had not yet been prepared
suggests that the plan had not been formulated for a long enough time to have them
prepared. But even assuming that the Respondent had been working on such a plan
before the Union began its organizing of Respondent's employees, the timing of the
announcement of the pension plan before it had been put in written form for the
employees by an attorney who had been brought from Chicago to make such
announcement justifies the inference that the announcement was made in haste to
dissuade the employees from seeking representation by the Union .8 I therefore find
that by such announcement Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
III. THE REMEDY
Since I have found that the Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices
in violation of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because the
Respondent's past actions give reason to anticipate a danger of the reactivation of
The Committee as a means of combating organization by the Union or other bona
fide labor organizations, I find that a disestablishment'order is essential to effectuate
the policies of the Act, and I shall so recommend. I shall also recommend that
Respondent post an appropriate notice to its employees so that they may understand
that they are free to become or remain members of the Union or any other labor
organization of their own choosing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Our Own Union is not, by that name, a labor organization.
4. The Committee, composed of Daryl Lehmkuhl, Gordon Faber, Robert Androy,
and Bill McClendon, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
5. By dominating and interfering with the formation of a labor organization and
contributed financial support to it, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
6. By the conduct described in paragraph 5 hereof and by announcing a profit shar-
ing plan at a time designed to influence its employees in their choice of a collective-
bargaining representative, Respondent has engaged in unremedied unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire
record in the case, I recommend that the Board order that Respondent, Bev Cal Opti-
cal Co., Santa Monica, California, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating or interfering with the formation of The Committee or any other
collective-bargaining representative of its employees or contributing financial or other
support thereto.
(b) Promising pension plans or other economic benefits as inducements to influence
its employees and interfere with their free choice of a collective-bargaining
representative.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Jewelers' Union,
Local 23, affiliated with International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of their own choosing.
8 Laars Engineers , Inc., 142 NLRB 1341.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely disestablish, The
Committee or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of Respondent's
employees for the purpose of bargaining or dealing in respect to grievances, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(b) Post at its place of business in Santa Monica, California, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 21 of the Board, shall, after having been duly signed by Respond-
ent's authorized representatives, be posted by Respondent, immediately upon receipt
thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and be maintained by Respondent for no less than 60 consecutive
days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said
notices aie not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from-
the date of service of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.10
91n the event that this Recommended Order 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 a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision,
and Order"
10 In the event that 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 herewith."
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation of The Committee (a
collective-bargaining representative of our employees) or any other collective-
bargaining representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Jewelers' Union, Local 23,
affiliated with International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of their own choosing, by promising pensions or any other
economic benefits as inducements to influence or interfere with our employees in
their free choice of collective-bargaining representative or in any other manner.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and completely dis-
establish, The Committee, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any
of our employees for the purpose of dealing in respect to grievances, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or any other conditions of employment.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of Jewelers' Union, Local
23, affiliated with International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
BEV CAL OPTICAL CO.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, U.S. Postoffice
and Courthouse Building, 312 North Spring Street., Los Angeles, California, Tele-
phone No. 688-5844. .