Blumesfeid Theatres Circuit

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 206 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit, a partnership; Blumen-
feld Enterprises, a Division of Cinerama, Inc.; Rox-
ie Oakland Theatre, a partnership and Theatrical
Janitors Union, Local 121, Service Employees In-
ternational Union; International Alliance of Theat-
rical Stage Employees, Local 169. Case 32 CA-593
(formerly 20-CA 13540)
January 25, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On September 20, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the Charging Party filed
a response, and the General Counsel filed an answer
and a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
I Respondents moved that General Counsel's answering brief not be re-
ceived. filed, or considered because it allegedly did not comply with the
Board's Rules and Regulations. Sec. 102,46(d). Attached to General Coun-
sel's answering brief was a copy of his bnef to the Administrative Law
Judge which specified the pages of the record and authorities on which he
relied. Therefore, we hereby deny Respondent's motion.
2 Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc.. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In affirming the finding that BTC and Roxie Partnership are a single
employer, we additionally rely on the facts that (I) when Nathan Blumen-
feld received Local 169's October 4. 1978. letter regarding the reopened
Roxie Theatre, he did not consult his nephew Allan Blumenfeld but instead
sent the letter to Respondents' common attorney because, according to Na-
than, "I handle all the labor relations for Cinerama Theatres. Allan is not
familiar with the labor relations. So I left it up to my self-judgment. Any-
thing in regard to labor . .. I didn't think it was necessary [to discuss it with
Allan]": Nathan's response to a letter from Local 121 was similar: (2) ac-
cording to Nathan. when he and controlling partner Joseph Blumenfeld are
absent. Allan runs the office from which the various Blumenfeld businesses
are operated: (3) the sixth partnership amendment for BTC reveals that
Allan will own a controlling insterest in BTC if he survives the other part-
ners: (4) the "hiring" of a new staff for the reopened Roxic consisted of
moving the employees and management from the just-closed Blumenfeld
Enterprises' T & D Theatre: and (5) even prior to the closing. Nathan.
rather than Joseph's son Robert Blumenfeld. handled all personnel matters
regarding employees represented b a union
240 NLRB No. 31
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondents, Blumenfeld Theatres
Circuit, a partnership, and Roxie Oakland Theatre, a
partnership, Oakland, California, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for that of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
with International Alliance of Theatrical Stage
Employees, Local 169, as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our employees
employed at the Roxie Oakland Theatre in the
following unit:
All projectionists employed by the employer-
members of San Francisco Theatre Employers
Association, excluding all other employees in-
cluding guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
with Theatrical Janitors Union, Local 121, Ser-
vice Employees International Union, as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees employed at the Roxie Oakland
Theatre in the following unit:
All janitorial employees employed by the em-
ployer-members of East Bay Theatre Associa-
tion, excluding all other employees including
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT repudiate our outstanding col-
lective-bargaining contracts with those Unions,
refuse to honor the terms and conditions of
those contracts, withdraw recognition from said
Unions, unilaterally modify the terms and con-
ditions of employment of employees in said bar-
gaining units during the term of those contracts.
fail to notify said Unions concerning the tempo-
rary closing and the reopening of said theater, or
refuse to bargain with said Unions concerning
the effects of such closing and the subsequent
reopening on bargaining unit employees.
BLUMENFELD TH EATRES CI RCUIT 207
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against any employee in order to avoid our
bargaining or contractual obligations with said
Unions, or because of the union membership of
that employee.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL. upon request, recognize and bargain
collectively with International Alliance of The-
atrical Stage Employees, Local 169, and Theatri-
cal Janitors Union, Local 121, Service Employ-
ees International Union, as the exclusive
bargaining representatives of our employees em-
ployed at the Roxie Oakland Theatre in the re-
spective bargaining units set forth above.
WE WILL honor and abide by our outstanding
collective-bargaining contracts with said
Unions.
WE WILL offer the employees in those bargain-
ing units who were discharged when the Roxie
Oakland Theatre closed on September 6, 1977,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
WE WILt. make whole, with interest, the em-
ployees in those bargaining units who were dis-
charged when the Roxie Oakland Theatre closed
on September 6, 1977, for any loss of earnings
and other benefits they' may have suffered be-
cause of the discrimination we inflicted upon
them.
WE WILL make whole, with interest, those em-
ployees who were hired in said bargaining units
after the Roxie Oakland Theatre reopened on
September 28. 1977, for any losses that they may
have suffered by reason of our failure and refus-
al to honor the collective-bargaining agree-
ments, including all contributions the Unions
would have received in accordance with those
agreements.
BLUMENFELD THEAt RES CIR(IUII,. A
PARTNERSHIP
RoxIE OAKLAND THEATRE. A PARTNERSHIP
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D TAPLITZ. Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Oakland, California, on April 26, 27. and
28. 1978. The charge and first amended charge were filed
respectively, on December 5, 1977. and January 9, 1978, by
Theatrical Janitors Union, Local 121, Service Employees
International Union herein called Janitors Local 121). and
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Lo-
cal 169 (herein called Projectionists Local 169 and herein
jointly called the Unions). The complaint, which issued on
February 23, 1978, alleges that Blumenfeld Theatres Cir-
cuit, a partnership (herein called BTC). Blumenfeld En-
terprises, a Division of Cinerama, Inc.2 (herein called BE).
and Roxie Oakland Theatre, a partnership (herein called
the Roxie Partnership), violated Section 8(a)( 1). (3), and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act. as amended.
Issues
The primary issues are:
I. Whether BTC, BE, and the Roxie Partnership (herein
sometimes referred to jointly as Respondents) are a single
employer.
2. Whether the Respondents violated the Act by refus-
ing to recognize and bargain with the Unions, by closing
down the Roxie Oakland Theatre (herein called the Roxie
Theatre) and by discharging the employees of that theatre,
by refusing to honor their collective-bargaining contracts
with the Unions, and by reopening the theatre without re-
calling its former employees.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
produce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which
have been carefully considered, were timely filed on behalf
of the General Counsel and the Respondent. A late-filed
brief submitted by the Charging Party has been rejected
and will not be considered.
Upon the entire record of the case 3 and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
BTC is a partnership existing by virtue of the laws of
California, with an office and principal place of business in
San Francisco, California, where it is engaged in the man-
agement of various movie theaters in northern California.
During the past year BTC performed services valued in
excess of $50,000 for customers within the State of Califor-
nia, which customers themselves met one of the Board's
jurisdictional standards other than the indirect flow or in-
direct outflow standard. The complaint alleges, the answer
as amended admits, and I find that BTC is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
I he legal name of that entll 5 is Blumenfeld Iheatres It des business
under the name of Blumenfeld heaires Circuit.
' The legal name of that entity is Rlumenfeld Enterprises. It has at times
used Blumenfeld Enterprises. a Division of Clnerama. Inc.. as a logo of
idennflcatlion
Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected
BL UM E NFELD THEATRES CIRC UIT 207~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Roxie Partnership is a limited partnership existing
by virtue of the laws of California. It owns and operates
the Roxie Theatre at 519-17th Street. Oakland, California.
The complaint does not allege, nor has the General Coun-
sel offered evidence to prove that the Roxie Partnership
individually meets the Board's jurisdictional standards.
The complaint does allege that the Roxie Partnership is a
single employer with BTC and BE. Though BE is named in
the complaint as part of the single employer, the General
Counsel states in his brief that he seeks no remedy against
BE.
II. I I.ABOR ORGANIZAIIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer as amended admits,
and I find that the Unions are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111 liit ALLEGED NFAIR LABOR PRACTIC(ES
A. Introduction
For many years, the projectionists employed at the Rox-
ie Theatre were represented by Projectionists Local 169
and were covered by a collective-bargaining agreement.
The janitors were represented by Janitors Union Local 121
and also were covered by a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. On September 6, 1977, the Roxie Theatre was closed
and all of the employees employed there were discharged.
The closing took place without any bargaining with the
Unions. On September 28, 1977, the theater reopened with
all new employees, none of whom belonged to either union.
The collective-bargaining contracts are no longer honored.
and the Unions are not recognized as the collective-bar-
gaining agent of the employees.
Much of the testimony in this case went to questions
relating to the ownership, leasehold interests, and manage-
ment of the Roxie Theatre. For purposes of introduction.
the general outline is as follows: The Roxie Partnership
owns the building in which the Roxie Theatre is located.
The Roxie Partnership leased the building to Cinerama of
Northern California, Inc. (herein called Cinerama). a pub-
licly held corporation that is national in scope. The lease
agreement contained provisions referring to a basic agree-
ment between Cinerama and Joseph Blumenfeld, under
which Joseph Blumenfeld or his designate was to operate
theatres for Cinerama. That operation included all labor
relations matters. Joseph Blumenfeld's designate was BTC.
Cinerama ordered the closing of the Roxie Theatre and on
September 6, 1977, BTC discontinued its operation of the
theatre. On October 28, 1977, the Roxie Partnership, which
owned the building, reopened the theatre. As is detailed
below, there were a great number of interconnections be-
tween the Roxie Partnership, Cinerama, and BTC. Allan
Blumenfeld is the only general partner in the Roxie Part-
nership and, as such, he has sole managerial responsibility.
Allan Blumenfeld is also a partner in BTC. He is a son of
Joseph Blumenfeld, the principal partner in BTC. Nathan
Blumenfeld, who is a partner in BTC, and the brother of
Joseph Blumenfeld. is in charge of all labor relations mat-
ters for BTC. He was responsible for the collective-bar-
gaining contracts covering the projectionists and janitors at
the Roxie Theatre. Robert Blumenfeld is the brother of
Allan and the son of Joseph Blumenfeld. Hie has his office
at the BTC headquarters but until sometime after Septem-
ber 6, 1977, he was, according to his testimony, employed
by Cinerama to watch over the management of the Roxie
Theatre. He reported both to Cinerama and to BTC. De-
tails of these and other interconnections are set forth be-
low.
B. The Entities Involved
I. BTC
In 1945, four brothers, Joseph, Abe, Nathan, and Jack
Blumenfeld, entered into a partnership agreement under
which the partnership was to be conducted under the name
Blumenfeld Theatres.4 The partners generally refer to the
partnership as the Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit and some-
times as the Blumenfeld Theatre Company. The partner-
ship is referred to herein as BTC to avoid confusion be-
tween the Blumenfeld Theatres partnership and theaters
t:lat members of the Blumenfeld family operate.
Under the original partnership agreement, Joseph Blu-
menfeld held a 70-percent interest in the share of profits.
Abe Blumenfeld a 20-percent interest, and Nathan and
Jack Blumenfeld each a 5-percent interest. The agreement
provided that Joe Blumenfeld would be the general manag-
er of the partnership and that the remaining partners
would discharge the duties and responsibilities assigned to
them by him. In the years following the advent of the part-
nership, Abe and Jack Blumenfeld died and there were a
number of amendments to the partnership agreement. At
the times material herein, there were three partners. Jo-
seph, Nathan, and Allan Blumenfeld. Allan is the son of
Joseph Blumenfeld. Joseph's interest in the share of profits
of the partnership is 52-1./2 percent, Nathan's 23-3/4 per-
cent, and Allan's 23-3/4 percent. The seventh amendment
to the articles of copartnership provides in part that, on the
death of Joseph, two-fifths of his interest is to go to his son
Xllan and that, on the death of Nathan, one-fourth of his
interest will go to his nephew, Allan. Nathan credibly testi-
fied that Joseph Blumenfeld is the real boss and oversees
everything.
BTC administers and manages a large number of theat-
ers and other properties. Its offices are at 1521 Sutter
Street, San Francisco, (herein called the Blumenfeld Build-
ing), a building that it owns. That building is identified by
a sign saying "Blumenfeld Enterprises." Nathan Blumen-
feld testified that the sign was merely a logo of identifica-
tion. 5
Joseph, Nathan, and Allan Blumenfeld maintain their
offices at the Blumenfeld Building. Joseph is the managing
partner and overall head of BTC. Nathan has a number of
the pai Itnership agleem enl pro, ides that the partners v il mutuall
co-operate. one with the other. in the management and adminlstrallon of
such nlion picture theat;res and other places of allusement as thes ma,
pro,,ure the right to 3admnister and manage fromn time to time
t)etails concerning he Blumenfeld Enterprises partnership are discussed
below
BLUMENFELD THEATRES CIRCUIT 209
duties, including those relating to labor relations for the
theaters that BTC manages. Allan is responsible for build-
ing repairs and insurance coverage. He is also the office
manager and supervises the bookkeeping and accounting
work for BTC.
2. The Roxie Partnership
Before 1965, Alameda County Properties, Inc., owned
the Roxie Theatre. In 1965 the stockholders in that corpo-
ration formed a limited partnership to take over the owner-
ship of the theater. The shares in the partnership are as
follows: Allan Blumenfeld (who is also a partner in BTC
and the eldest son of Joseph), 5-2/3 percent; Joan Blumen-
feld Werner (Allan's sister), 5-1/2 percent: A. Blumenfeld
and Edward M. Donner, Jr., as trustees for Carol Blumen-
feld Baer (Allan's sister),6 5-1/2 percent; Gordon Blumen-
feld (Abe Blumenfeld's son and Allan's cousin), 8-1/3 per-
cent; Ann Corin (Abe Blumenfeld's daughter and Allan's
cousin), 8-1/3 percent; and 16-2/3 percent each to William
Laws, Linda McCulloch, Michael John McNerny, and
Calista Lacey (none of whom are members of the Blumen-
feld family). All the partners except for Allan Blumenfeld
are limited partners. Allan Blumenfeld is the general part-
ner and, pursuant to the limited partnership agreement, he
is in charge of all activities and operations of the partner-
ship. The partnership agreement provides that the partner-
ship was formed "for the purpose of engaging in the joint
venture of owning, operating, and leasing" the Roxie The-
atre.
The certificate of limited partnership doing business un-
der the fictitious name of Roxie Oakland Theatre filed by
the Roxie Partnership states that the location of the princi-
pal place of business of the partnership is to be at 1521
Sutter Street, San Francisco, which is the Blumenfeld
Building. The general partner, Allan Blumenfeld, main-
tains his office there but the Roxie Partnership does not
pay any money to BTC to house him there.
Until September 28, 1977, when the Roxie Partnership
began operating the Roxie Theatre, the partnership derived
all its income from leasing the theatre to other entities.
3. Cinerama
Cinerama is one of the entities that leased the Roxie
Theatre from the Roxie Partnership. Business relations be-
tween Cinerama and the various Blumenfeld interests are
discussed below.
Cinerama is a publicly held, nationally listed corporation
with extensive theater interests. None of the Blumenfeld
family are officers of Cinerama and none hold an owner-
ship interest in it. However, two Blumenfelds at one time
worked for Cinerama. Max Blumenfeld (the son of Nathan
Blumenfeld and the cousin of Allan) handled advertising
for Cinerama. His services were terminated by Cinerama.
Robert Blumenfeld (the son of Joseph Blumenfeld and the
younger brother of Allan) was employed by Cinerama
prior to the close of the Roxie Theatre as a field supervisor.
6 This name appears as Carol B. Feher in parts lof the record.
Robert was in charge of hiring managers and checking
their operations. Though he was an employee of Cinerama,
he reported both to Cinerama and his father, Joseph Blu-
menfeld, at BTC. He has maintained an office at BTC
headquarters in the Blumenfeld Building since 1972 or
1973. Robert Blumenfeld credibly testified that he was un-
der Joseph Blumenfeld and representatives of Cinerama
with regard to the management of the Roxie Theatre.
When he had any problems involving a union, he called his
uncle. Nathan Blumenfeld, who is a partner in BTC. Na-
than was responsible for all labor relations for the Roxie
Theatre as well as the other theaters managed by BTC.
BTC maintained a checking account on behalf of Cinera-
ma, and Allan Blumenfeld as well as others were author-
ized to sign checks on that account. Robert Blumenfeld
was discharged by Cinerama after the theater closed on
September 6, 1977. He is presently an employee of BTC.
where he oversees the operations of BTC's San Francisco
theaters.
4. BE
BE is a partnership consisting of the following interests:
Joseph Blumenfeld, 27.68 percent: the estate of Marjorie
Blumenfeld, 27.68 percent; a trust under the will of Mary
Plumenfeld, 8.93 percent; the estate of A. Blumenfeld, 8.93
percent; and K. Laws, 26.73 percent. 7 BE is managed by
Joseph Blumenfeld. At one time BE was a corporation.
The corporation was dissolved and a partnership was
formed. At the present time, BE owns certain bowling al-
leys but does not own any theaters. BE had owned the T &
D Theatre in Oakland. In September 1977, that theater was
sold to the Oakland Redevelopment Agency. Prior to 1975,
the theater was managed by BTC, and Nathan Blumenfeld
handled all labor problems. T & D had a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Projectionists Local 169. In 1975
the theater was leased to Michael Weldon. Weldon went
bankrupt and abandoned the theater. Thereafter, the the-
ater was managed by Allan and Robert Blumenfeld for
BE. The employees of T & D were not covered at that time
ty any collective-bargaining agreement. Earl Gibbs was
the resident manager of the T & D for BE.
While Allan and Robert Blumenfeld were managing the
T & D Theatre, there was an interchange of equipment
between the T & D Theatre and the Roxie Theatre. At that
time. Allan Blumenfeld was the general partner in charge
of the Roxie Theatre. In February 1976, two projector
heads worth about $2,000 each were taken from the T & D
Theatre and moved to the Roxie Theatre. Two projector
heads of much less value were taken from the Roxie The-
atre and put into the T & D Theatre. The RCA sound
technician who did the work was paid by two checks. One
of them was on a Roxie Theatre-I account and had the
notation "share Blumenfeld Enterprises number 1663, for
T & D." The other was on a Blumenfeld Enterprises ac-
count and had the notation "Share Roxie no. 1260." The
equipment was removed from the T & D upon the instruc-
tions of Robert Blumenfeld.
K I iah I, the mother f 'W R I :su,. ush h: i lntcres{ in th Ric
pa rnershlp
BLUMENFELD THEATRES CIRCUIT 9
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint alleges one of tile Respondents to be Blu-
menfeld Enterprises, a Division of Cinerama Inc. Nathan
Blumenfeld, allegedly on behalf of BTC, has corresponded
with Janitors Local 121 on stationery that carried the head-
ing "Blumenfeld Enterprises, a Division of Cinerama The-
atres, Inc., of California." Robert Blumenfeld, allegedly on
behalf of Cinerama, posted a notice dated April 22, 1977,
at the Roxie Theatre notifying the employees of the pro-
spective close of the theater. That notice was on the same
letterhead. Those letterheads listed the address as the Blu-
menfeld Building. In addition, various contracts and other
documents had been signed by Blumenfeld Enterprises as a
division of Cinerama, Inc., of California. Nathan Blumen-
feld credibly testified that no such entity in fact exists and
that the name was in effect used as a logo for other entities.
General Counsel stated in its brief:
It is the General Counsel's position that Cinerama, as
such, is not a necessary party to this proceeding, as it
had no employing presence with respect to the Roxie
Theatre apart from BTC, ROT or Blumenfeld Enter-
prises. Accordingly, the designation "A Division of
Cinerama, Inc." is unnecessary for remedial purposes,
nor is a remedial order sought against Blumenfeld En-
terprises, the partnership.
C. Transactions Between the Roxie Partnership, BTC, and
Cinerama Concerning the Roxie Theatre
I. The leasehold arrangements
Leasehold arrangements concerning members of the
Blumenfeld family and the Roxie Theatre go back at least
to 1941. On July 1, 1941, Alameda County Realty Compa-
ny (which consisted of Joseph and Abe Blumenfeld as trus-
tees, Elwood and Clarence Laws as trustees, Calista Mc-
Nerney Lacey and Michael McNerney) leased the Roxie
Theatre to Alameda County Theatres (which consisted of
Dennis McNerney, Clarence Laws, and Joseph and Abe
Blumenfeld). On June 7, 1945, Alameda County Realty
Company assigned its interest to Alameda County Proper-
ties, Inc. On June 23, 1965, Alameda County Properties,
Inc., was dissolved and on the same date the Roxie Part-
nership was formed and succeeded to the interest of
Alameda County Properties, Inc., as lessor. On August ,
1945, Alameda County Theatres assigned its interest as les-
see to Blumenfeld Enterprises, Inc. The original term of the
lease was for 15 years beginning July I, 1941. The lease was
extended on May 16, 1956, for an additional 5 years begin-
ning July 1, 1956, with an option to Blumenfeld Enterpris-
es, Inc., to extend the term for an additional 10 years from
and after June 30, 1961. Blumenfeld Enterprises, Inc., exer-
cised the option and the lease was extended until June 30,
1971, with lessee having the option to renew the lease for 9
successive 5-year periods. Effective September 1, 1968,
Blumenfeld Enterprises. Inc., assigned its interest in the
lease to Jupiter Productions, Inc. Jupiter Productions, Inc.,
is a subsidiary of Cinerama and Cinerama was substituted
for Jupiter on the lease in 1970. Also effective September I.
1968, the Roxie Partnership as lessor and Jupiter Produc-
tions, Inc., as lessee entered into an amended lease for the
Roxie Theatre. Allan Blumenfeld executed that amend-
ment as general partner for the Roxie Partnership. The
term of the amended lease was from September 1, 1968,
through August 31, 1978, with a rental of $2,000 per
month. It provided that rent was payable at the office of
Blumenfeld Enterprises, Inc., in San Francisco. The lease
provided: "As to the contracts and agreements listed on
Exhibit 'B' Lessee agrees to perform all obligations which
would otherwise be performed by Lessor under the terms
thereof on or after September 1. 1968 .... " Exhibit B on
the lease lists the August 15, 1968, to August 14, 1972,
contract with Projectionists Local 169 as well as the Octo-
ber 20, 1968, to February 14, 1973, contract with Janitors
Local 121.
The lease provided:
Lessor does hereby irrevocably designate and ap-
point JOSEPH BLUMENFELD and ABE BLU-
MENFELD, or either of them, as their true and lawful
attorney in fact to modify, amend or alter this agree-
ment or any provisions hereof in any respect whatso-
ever except as to the rental to be paid by Lessee here-
under and to receive on behalf of Lessor any and all
notices, receipts or other documents required to be
sent by Lessee or which may be sent pursuant to the
terms hereof. Concurrently herewith Lessor shall exe-
cute any and all necessary written powers of attorney
so as to carry out the intent and purpose hereof. The
powers granted hereunder are powers coupled with an
interest. In entering into this lease, Lessee is relying
upon this provision as part of the material consider-
ation hereof.
The lease also referred to a certain Basic Agreement exe-
cuted concurrently herewith by and between Lessee, on the
one hand, and certain other Parties including Lessor, on
the other hand," and provided that the "booking compa-
ny" mentioned in that basic agreement may pay the rent
from the gross receipts of the theater.
2. The basic agreement
Though the lease of September 1, 1968, stated that the
basic agreement was entered into simultaneously with that
lease, and that basic agreement is effective by its terms on
that date, it purports on its face to be entered into on
March 31, 1969.8 The basic agreement is between Cinera-
ma (as well as Jupiter Productions, Inc., its wholly owned
subsidiary), Joseph and Abe Blumenfeld and Blumenfeld
Enterprises, Inc., and other persons. It is a wide-ranging
agreement covering relationships between Cinerama and
members of the Blumenfeld family as well as others with
regard to the sale, leasing, and management of various
properties. Allan Blumenfeld is one of the many signato-
ries. He signed on behalf of Blumenfeld Enterprises, Inc.,
Sacramento Realty Co., and the Roxie Partnership. The
agreement specifically lists the Roxie Theatre as one of the
enterprises involved and has language paralleling that set
forth in the September , 1968, lease. It also lists the out-
It .appears that a prior agreement had been entered Into on September 2.
1968. and the basic agreement is a more detailed contract.
BLUMENFELD THEATRES CIRCUIT 211
standing contracts with Projectionists Local 169 and Jani-
tors Local 121. Under a cluase entitled "operation." the
contract provides as follows:
JUPITER agrees to employ (as of the effective date) a
company ("Booking Company"), controlled by JO-
SEPH BLUMENFELD. to buy and book motion pic-
tures for the Theatres and to employ all personnel nec-
essary to manage and operate all of the Theatres, as
theatres only. The Booking Company shall employ, at
its sole cost and expense, all home office supervisory
personnel necessary for the operation of the Theatres,
including but not limited to a general manager, film
buyer, bookers, accounting personnel and all other
necessary home office personnel.... The Booking
Company shall be responsible for its own home office
expense (i.e., rent, utilities, insurance and other expen-
ses), but shall employ, at the expense of JUPITER all
zone or district managers, theatre managers and other
theatre operating personnel. The operations of the
Booking Company shall be under the personal super-
vision of JOSEPH BLUMENFELD, whose services
are agreed by all of the parties hereto to be unique and
of special nature and intellectual character.
The term of the management agreement was for 10 years.
The contract provided that the "booking company" was to
receive 6 percent of the gross box office receipts after de-
ducting admission taxes from all of the theaters maintained
and operated by the "booking company" for the benefit of
Cinerama or Jupiter.
The "booking company" controlled by Joseph Blumen-
feld under the basic agreement was and is BTC.
3. The operation of the Roxie Theatre
Pursuant to the basic agreement, BTC operated the Rox-
ie Theatre. Robert Blumenfeld. though he considered him-
self an employee of Cinerama, was responsible to both
Cinerama and BTC. In addition to reporting to Cinerama,
he reported to his father, Joseph Blumenfeld. His office
was at the Blumenfeld Building. He testified that he was
Cinerama's fieldman and that he had been hired to make
sure the theatres were well run. He did not handle any
labor relations matters, as those functions were performed
by Nathan Blumenfeld of BTC. Robert Blumenfeld testi-
fied that, in his opinion, the projectionists and janitors at
the Roxie Theatre were employees of Cinerama. However,
Respondents admit in their answer, and I find, that the
Roxie Theatre was operated prior to its closing by certain
employees of BTC pursuant to a management contract
with Cinerama.
BTC performed all the administrative functions for the
Roxie Theatre, including the processing of payroll checks
from a "Cinerama account." Booking functions were per-
formed by an employee who worked in the BTC office and
was paid by BTC through the Cinerama account. Though
the status of that employee as well as that of Robert Blu-
menfeld is, at best, ambiguous. the basic agreement is quite
specific and provides that the booking company will "em-
ploy all personnel necessary to manage and operate" the
theater. It also provides "the Booking Company shall em-
ploy, at its sole cost and expense, all home office superviso-
ry personnel necessary for the operation of the Theatres,
including but not limited to a general manager, film buyer,
bookers, accounting personnel and all other necessary
home office personnel." The basic agreement states that
the booking company "shall employ, at the expense of Ju-
piter all zone or district managers, theatre managers and
other theatre operating personnel." Onsite managers hired
and fired employees and handled day-to-day supervision.
Robert Blumenfeld hired the managers.
4. The collective-bargaining agreements
BTC is a member of the San Francisco Theatre Em-
ployers Association, a group that engages in collective bar-
gaining with Projectionists Local 169 and a number of
other projectionist locals. Cinerama is a member of the
East Bay Theatre Association, a group that bargains with
Janitors Local 121. For many years Nathan Blumenfeld
has actively engaged in bargaining with the Unions and a
number of successive collective-bargaining agreements
have been signed covering employees of the Roxie Theatre.
a. Projectionists Local 169
By letter dated May 12, 1972, Nathan Blumenfeld au-
tlorized the San Francisco Theatre Employers Association
to represent the Roxie in bargaining with the Northern
California State Association of IATSE Locals (which in-
cluded Projectionists Local 169). That letter indicated that
Nathan Blumenfeld was to be one of the bargaining repre-
sentatives of the Theatre Employers Association. He
signed the letter "Blumenfeld Ent. and Cinerama of No.
Cal. Inc." Nathan Blumenfeld also participated in the bar-
gaining that led to a collective-bargaining agreement nego-
tiated between San Francisco Theatre Employers Associa-
tion and Northern California State Association of IATSE
Locals effective from August 15, 1972, to August 14, 1976.
The contract showed the employer to be "Blumenfeld The-
atres, Division of Cinerama Inc. of California." Nathan
Blumenfeld signed one part of the agreement as "agent"
;or "Cinerama Inc. of Cal," another part as "Cinerama Inc.
of Cal. Blumenfeld Theatres, and Blumenfeld agent" and
yet another part as "Cinerama Inc. of Cal." A separate
contract with the same effective dates between the Roxie
Theatre and Projectionists Local 169 was signed by Na-
than Blumenfeld on March 7, 1973. He signed that agree-
ment under the caption "For the employer." The contract
names the employer as the Roxie Theatre. Nathan Blu-
menfeld also participated in the negotiation of the 1976
contract which is effective from August 15. 1976, to No-
vember 15, 1980. The contract is between the San Francis-
co Theatre Employers Association and the Northern Cali-
fornia State Association of IATSE Locals. At the
commencement of negotiations the Employer's Associa-
tion gave the Union Association a list of members. The
Roxie was listed under the heading "Cinerama." The cur-
rent contract was executed on December 15, 1976, by the
San Francisco Theatre Employers Association on behalf of
its members. An appendix to the contract lists the Roxie as
a Cinerama theatre covered by the agreement.
BLUMENFELD THEATRES CIRCUIT 1
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The agreement by its terms covers "all employees of op-
erating or projection rooms and operators of apparatus
and connections appertaining thereto" within the jurisdic-
tion of the Projectionists Union.9
The payroll records for the Roxie Theatre show that for
the week preceding the theatre's close on September 6,
1977, three projectionists were employed. They were How-
ard Bunting, William P. Evarts, and Michael Swanson.
None of those employees were reemployed after the theatre
reopened.
b. Janitors Local 121
Janitors Local 121 has represented the janitorial employ-
ees at the Roxie Theatre for at least 33 years. On a number
of occasions Nathan Blumenfeld wrote to Janitors Local
121 on the letterhead of "Blumenfeld Enterprises, A Divi-
sion of Cinerama Theatres of California" on matters re-
lated to union relations. The current collective-bargaining
agreement is effective from August 15, 1976, until August
14, 1979. It is between the East Bay Theatre Association of
which Cinerama is a member and Janitors Local 121.
Among the covered theatres listed in an appendix, the
Roxie Theatre is shown under the title "Blumenfeld." The
recognition clause of the contract provides that the Union
is recognized as the sole collective-bargaining agent for all
janitors employed in the theatres listed in the appendix
which are within the geographical jurisdiction of Janitors
Local 121.'0
The records of the Roxie Theatre show that during the
week preceding the close of September 6, 1977, one person
was employed as a janitor. He was Alfred Freitas. " Freitas
was discharged on September 6, 1977, and was not thereaf-
ter rehired.
5. The close of the Roxie Theatre
Shortly before August 22, 1977, Fred Minsky, an official
of Cinerama, called Robert Blumenfeld on the telephone
and told him to take whatever steps were necessary to close
the Roxie Theatre, because Cinerama no longer desired to
operate it. As is set forth above, Robert Blumenfeld was
responsible both to Cinerama and BTC. Robert Blumen-
feld, while he was at his office at the Blumenfeld Building,
dictated a letter to his secretary that read:
As alleged in the complaint. I find that the following unit is appropriate
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of
the Act:
All projectionists employed by the employer-members of San Francis-
co Theatre Employers Association. excluding all other employees in-
cluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
10 As alleged in the complaint. I find that the following unit is appropriate
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of
the Act:
All janitorial employees employed by the employer-members of Fast
Bay Theatre Association, excluding all other employees including
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
1 Though only one Janitor was employed by Roxie Theatre, he waS not
employed in a one-person unit. The bargaining unit consisted of all janitlrl-
al employees employed by the employer-members of East Ba'y Theatre As-
socialion.
Blumenfeld Enterprises
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
FIFTEEN TWENTY-ONE SUTTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109
(415) 563-6200
A DIVISION OF
CINERAMA THEATRES INC.
OF CALIFORNIA
August 22, 1977
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to notify you that the Roxie Theatre will close
after the night of September 6, 1977.
It has become more economical to close the theatre
than to continue to operate it.
Sincerely,
/s/ R. Blumenfeld
ROBERT BLUMENFELD
RB/mg
Robert Blumenfeld took a copy of the letter to the Roxie
Theatre and posted it on the bulletin board. He gave other
copies to the theatre manager and asked him to hand them
to employees. Robert Blumenfeld testified that he also told
his secretary to send conformed copies of the letter to the
Unions. Though the posted notice and the notices given to
employees did not show that any conformed copies were
sent, Respondent did produce its file copy which indicated
that copies were sent to a number of people, including
Wayne Hoffman of Projectionists Local 169. There was no
indication that a copy was sent to Janitors Local 121. Rob-
ert Grosso, president of Janitors Local 121 and Wayne
Hoffman, business representative for Projectionists Local
169, both testified that their unions did not receive any
notice from Robert Blumenfeld and that they first found
out about the close when employees told them that a notice
had been posted. Robert Blumenfeld admittedly did not
take care of union matters for the Roxie Theatre. That was
the function of Nathan Blumenfeld. Grosso and Hoffman,
both of whom appeared to be credible witnesses, testified
that they did not hear from Robert Blumenfeld concerning
tae close. In view of that testimony and Robert
Blumenfeld's past practices with regard to leaving union
matters to Nathan Blumenfeld, I do not credit his testi-
mony that he sent copies of the notice to the Unions.
The Roxie Theatre was closed on September 6, 1977. All
the employees were discharged."
6. The reopening of the Roxie Theatre
The Roxie Theatre was closed for about 3 weeks. On
September 28, 1977, Allan Blumenfeld, the general partner
in the Roxie Partnership, reopened the theater with all new
employees and, according to Respondent, no union con-
tracts. The new employees received less pay and benefits
than had the employees before the close. Allan Blumenfeld
hired Earl Gibbs as the theatre manager. Gibbs had been
l The Roxie Theatre payroll records show 13 names at that time, includ-
ing a manager and assistant.
BLUMENFELD THEATRES CIRCUIT 213
manager of the T & D Theatre. Gibbs hired a number of
employees who had worked with him at the T & D Theatre
and also hired new employees. None were members of the
Unions. The three new projectionists were Odile Bolls,
Donald Herren, and Gewn Hing. The new janitor was Pe-
ter Sun.
All the moveable equipment such as projectors and pop-
corn machines in the Roxie Theatre belonged to Cinerama.
Allan Blumenfeld used that equipment because in his
words "nobody said I can't use it." The Roxie Partnership
did not pay Cinerama for the use of that equipment. Ciner-
ama continued to pay rent on the premises as its lease was
still outstanding but the Roxie Partnership did not com-
pensate Cinerama or offset the rent by revenues earned
from the use of the theater. BTC continued to pay the
Roxie Partnership rent on behalf of Cinerama from the
BTC Cinerama account. Allan Blumenfeld is authorized to
sign those checks.
BTC performs a number of services for the Roxie Part-
nership. BTC performs all the bookkeeping and accounting
services for the Roxie Theatre. Gibbs sends in data to the
BTC payroll department which issues checks. BTC pur-
chases all supplies for the Roxie Theatre. Items such as
popcorn cups are purchased in bulk and the Roxie Theatre
uses them even though they have the name "Blumenfeld
Theatres" printed on them. BTC books movies for the
Roxie Theatre through a BTC employee. Some of the
booking contracts identify the "exhibitor" as "Blumenfeld
Enterprise" or "Blumenfeld Theatres as an agent for Ciner-
ama Theatres of California Inc." Between September 28
and December 31, 1977, the Roxie Partnership paid BTC
$510 for administrative services. From January I through
March 31, 1978, the sum paid for administrative services
was $1,072. When Allan Blumenfeld reopened the theatre
he purchased from Cinerama certain supplies such as con-
fectionaries that were on hand.
7. The efforts of the Unions to deal with the reopened
theatre
On August 22, 1977, Robert Blumenfeld posted the no-
tice saying that the theatre would be closed after the night
of September 6, 1977. Shortly thereafter employees of the
Roxie Theatre told the Unions of the notice. Both Wayne
Hoffman, the business representative of Projectionists Lo-
cal 169, and Robert Grosso, the president of Janitors Local
121, placed telephone calls to Nathan Blumenfeld but were
unable to contact him. Hoffman placed several phone calls
to Nathan Blumenfeld but Blumenfeld never returned the
calls.
On September 25, 1978, 3 days before the theater re-
opened, Hoffman, Grosso, and Projectionists Local 169
President Howard Scheurer went to the Roxie Theatre and
spoke to the new manager, Gibbs. They asked Gibbs what
his intentions were toward the theater and Gibbs replied
that he was leasing the theater and was cleaning the place
up. Gibbs was asked about negotiating a contract and he
replied that he had no authority to sign a contract. During
the course of the discussion Gibbs said that he had backers
but he refused to answer questions concerning who they
were. When he was asked about manpower requirements,
Gibbs said that he had brought some people from the T &
D Theatre and that he would be hiring additional people.
The union representatives again asked about the possibility
of a contract, and Gibbs said that he would talk to his
backers and get back to them. Hoffman asked if Gibbs
would put the union people back to work and Gibbs re-
plied that he did not have the power to decide, would con-
sult his superiors.'3
The day before the theater reopened Grosso went back
to the Roxie Theatre and again spoke to Gibbs. Grosso
asked whether Gibbs had found out if his backers wanted
union personnel. Gibbs replied that he had spoken to his
backers and that they did not want union help in the Roxie
Theatre. Grosso said that they would picket and Gibbs
answered that perhaps that would bring his backers out.
Hoffman also spoke to Gibbs. In a telephone conversa-
tion Gibbs told Hoffman that he had spoken to his superi-
ors and there was no way that he could use the Union's
people.
On October 4, 1977, Hoffman wrote a letter to Nathan
Blumenfeld, Robert Blumenfeld, the Roxie Theatre. Blu-
menfeld Theatres d/b/a Roxie Theatre and Cinerama
Blumenfeld d/b/a Roxie Theatre, all at the Blumenfeld
Bilding. The letter stated that the reopening of the Roxie
Tneatre without personnel covered by the collective-bar-
gaining agreement was a violation of the contract. On Oc-
tuber I 1, 1977, Grosso wrote a letter to the manager of the
Roxie Theatre at that theater's address stating that the
theater had abrogated the provisions of the contract in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. Grosso
demanded that the janitor who had formerly cleaned and
serviced the theater be immediately rehired with backpay.
In a further exchange of correspondence the attorney for
Respondents in substance contended that Respondents
had no contractual obligations toward the Unions and that
there was no basis for arbitration. The original charge in
the instant case was filed on December 5, 1977.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
I. Introduction
There was much testimony in this case concerning BTC,
the Roxie Partnership, BE, and Cinerama. It appears that
both Cinerama and BE are in the picture primarily for
background purposes. BE neither owns nor operates any
theatres. The General Counsel stated in his brief that he
does not seek a remedial order against BE. One of the
Respondents named in the complaint is Blumenfeld Enter-
prises, Division of Cinerama. Inc. There is no such entity
and Blumenfeld Enterprises, is not a division of Cinerama.
Cinerama, as a separate entity, is not named in the com-
plaint. The General Counsel stated in his brief that Cinera-
ma is not a necessary party to the proceeding as it had no
employing presence with respect to the Roxie Theatre
apart from BTC. the Roxie Partnership or BE. The out-
come of this case depends on findings with regard to the
status and conduct of BTC and the Roxie Partnership.
i II hce findlr are hbased oin i cmlrnp lte f he Itirmnon, f thl fm.n
(;r,~', weld Schcurer ( ibh, h l no t Intlti'
B L U M E N F.L T H A T E C I C I.1
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Roxie Partnership is the owner and lessor of the
Roxie Theatre. BTC operated the Roxie Theatre before its
close on September 6, 1977. The Roxie Partnership operat-
ed the theatre when it reopened on September 28, 1977.
BTC contends in substance that it managed the Roxie The-
atre solely as an agent of Cinerama and that it (BTC) never
had a bargaining relation of its own with the Unions con-
cerning that theater. One threshold question is, therefore,
whether BTC, independent of Cinerama, had a bargaining
obligation toward the Unions.
There is no allegation or proof that the Roxie Partner-
ship individually meets the Board's jurisdictional stan-
dards. Jurisdiction can be asserted over the Roxie Partner-
ship in this case only if the Roxie Partnership is found to
be a single employer with BTC. If it is such a single em-
ployer then BTC's obligation to bargain with the Unions
extends to the Roxie Partnership.' 4 The second threshold
question is, therefore, whether BTC and the Roxie Partner-
ship constitute a single employer.
2. The obligation of BTC to bargain with the Unions
Nathan Blumenfeld was responsible for all the Roxie
Theatre's labor relations until the theater closed on Sep-
tember 6, 1977. He is a partner in BTC. He actively partici-
pated in the negotiation of the successive contracts with
Projectionists Local 169. He actively dealt with Janitors
Local 121 with regard to contract enforcement matters.
There was no attempt to hide the contractual relationships.
They were listed as outstanding obligations on the Roxie
Theatre lease as well as the basic agreement.
Nathan Blumenfeld was the one who authorized the San
Francisco Theatre Employers Association to represent the
Roxie. He signed various documents in such a way as to
bind Blumenfeld entities as well as Cinerama. The May 12,
1972, authorization for the San Francisco Theatre Em-
ployers Association to represent the Roxie Theatre was
signed by Nathan Blumenfeld on behalf of Blumenfeld En-
terprises and Cinerama. The 1972 76 contract showed the
employer to be "Blumenfeld Theatres, Division of Cinera-
ma, Inc. of California." There was no such entity and Blu-
menfeld Theatres was not a division of Cinerama. The sep-
arate contract with Projectionists Local 169, which was
signed on March 7, 1973, was executed by Nathan Blu-
menfeld for the Roxie Theatre.
Nathan Blumenfeld also actively participated in the ne-
gotiation of the current contract with Projectionists Local
169, which was effective from August 15, 1976, to Novem-
ber 15, 1980.
Nathan Blumenfeld handled all labor relations for the
Roxie Theatre and that included matters relating to Jani-
14 In certain cases different components of a single emploier In i he
bargaining obligations that go t different and separate approprlate hbar-
gaining units (Cf 4Appalahitan ( nttlrutrion. Inc.. l al, 235 NI RB 685
(1978) Bran Infanit Wear (onipani. 235 NRB 1305 (1977): A 1 It/ c
Protection, Inc., 233 N.RB 3 (1977) In the instant case the onls units wc
are concerned with are projectionlists ad janitors at the Rosle I hea.tie
When BTC handled labor relations at the Rxie Theatre. those were the
bargaining units. When the Roic Parinership assumed the nlanaigeCntint
function, the bargaining units remained he same even though the emplo\-
ees were different.
tors Local 121. The current contract is effective from Au-
gust 15, 1976, until August 14, 1979. and in that contract
the Roxie Theatre is listed under the title "Blumenfeld."
Cinerama's basic agreement with the Blumenfelds pro-
vided that the booking company (BTC) was to employ all
personnel necessary to manage and operate the theaters.
That agreement was honored and, as Respondent admits,
the Roxie Theatre was operated prior to its closing by cer-
tain employees of BTC pursuant to the management con-
tract with Cinerama.
Until the close of the Roxie Theatre on September 6,
1977, the projectionists and janitors were employees of
BTC. Those employees were covered by collective-bargain-
ing agreements which are still in full force and effect. Na-
than Blumenfeld actively participated in the negotiations
of some of those contracts. Until the close of the Roxie on
September 6, 1977, he dealt with those Unions and accept-
ed and honored the validity of those contracts. His actions
were such as to lead the Unions to believe that they were
dealing with BTC.'5 Cinerama never had any collective-
bargaining relationship with the Unions. Cinerama's inter-
est was basically financial. The Roxie Partnership owned
the theater and BTC managed it. Cinerama had an interest
a, lessee which in effect gave it the right to collect certain
moneys. It had little further role. Though Robert Blumen-
feld reported to Cinerama, he was housed at the Blumen-
f-ld Building and he was required to report as well to BTC.
Under all these circumstances I find that BTC had a bar-
gaining relationship and an outstanding collective-bargain-
ing contract with the Unions at the time the theater closed
on September 6, 1977. I further find that BTC had an obli-
gation under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act to bargain in good
faith with the Unions.
3. BTC and the Roxie Partnership as a single employer
a. The applicable law
In Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union
1264, IBEW v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S.
255, 256 (1965), the Supreme Court held that in determin-
ing whether enterprises constitute a single employer: "The
controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in Board deci-
sions, are interrelation of operations, common manage-
ment, centralized control of labor relations and common
ownership." 6 Though the Board and the courts have not
always agreed on how to apply the standards enunciated
by the Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia in Local No. 627, Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, A FL CIO South
Prairie Construction Company and Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.] v.
N.L.R.B., 518 F.2d 1040 (1967), appears to be controlling.
In that case the court of appeals reversed the Decision of
the Board in Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. and South Prairie Con-
i Nalhan Blumenfeld testified: .. n all the sears we have been deal-
ing with negotilatios and eertihing. Blumenfeld, Blumenfeld Theatre and
Blunlfeld EInterprises has all been kind of one thing. We've known the
people we deal with across the table ,n a friendls basis. Ithink the\ under-
slotd I was negligent n the a I signed some of these contracts"
See also SaA rcle 0o ,,rlhern (ahlortia. In, . 1411 N.RB 765 (1963).
enfd 332 .2d 9(02 (9th (r. 1964), cert denied 379 t S. 961 (1965).
BLUMENFE~LD THEATRES CIRCUIT 215
struction Co.. 206 NLRB 562 (1973). Part of the circuit
court's decision was affirmed by the United States Su-
preme Court in South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No.
627, International Union of Operating Engineers, A FL CIO,
425 U.S. 800 (1976). The Board had made two separate
findings. The first was that two entities did not constitute a
single employer and the second was that each entity had a
separate appropriate bargaining unit for collective-bargain-
ing purposes. The court of appeals disagreed and found
both a single employer and a single unit. On appeal the
Supreme Court affirmed that part of the court of appeals'
decision which found that the two entities were a single
employer and reversed and remanded to the court of ap-
peals that part of the decision which related to the unit
question. 17 As the Supreme Court has affirmed the circuit
Court's decision with regard to the single employer. the
language of the circuit court is of particular importance.
That circuit court held 518 F.2d at 1045-46]:
Guidelines for "Single Employver" Status
In Radio Union v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc.,
380 U.S. 255 . . . (1965). the Supreme Court, in a per
curiam opinion affirming a "single employer" holding
below, said:
The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in
Board decisions, are interrelation of operations,
common management, centralized control of labor
relations and common ownership.
The court cited several NLRB decisions including one
affirmed in Sakrete of Northern California, Inc. v.
NLRB, 332 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379
U.S. 961 . . . (1965). In Sakrete, the Ninth Circuit
stated, at 907:
even if the substantial evidence shows interrelation-
ship of operations, centralized control of labor rela-
tions, or common management only at the executive
or top level, we do not agree that this precludes ap-
plication of the "single employer" concept.
It pointed out that these three criteria "deal not with
power and authority, as such, but with its exercise,"
and that such criteria, "on any level, are considera-
tions in addition to the factor of common ownership
or financial control."
Although the Supreme Court in Radio Union, supra,
commented that the record in that case was more than
adequate to show that all of the four "controlling
criteria" were present, it does not appear that all four
criteria must be present. In one of the NLRB cases
cited. Canton, Carp's, Inc., 125 N.L.R.B. 483 (1959).
the Board observed that it had on several occasions
made a finding of a single employer status in the ab-
sence of a common labor relations policy. and even
" On remand the Board Issued a Supplemenal Declsion reported .at 231
NLRB 76 (1977) In which it noted thai he Supreme Court had affirmed the
circuit court's finding thai the two entitles were a single enmplo)er I hc
Board reconsidered the single-uimt questil and cncluded that. een
though the entitles were a single emploser. seplrate units were appropriate
when it had been affirmatively shown that each of two
corporations held to be a single employer established
its own labor relations policy. In another of the NLRB
cases cited, .I.P. Radio. Inc.. 128 N.L.R.B. 113
(1960), the Board found that there was little or no
employee interchange: but 90 percent stock ownership
of the second corporation, the same officers and direc-
tors, and centralized control of "general labor policy"
and operations resulted in a "single employer" hold-
ing. In still another cited NLRB case, Overton Mar-
kets, Inc., 142 N.L.R.B. 615 (1963). the Board noted,
at 619. that the circumstances were not "characteristic
of the arm's length relationship found among uninte-
grated companies.", Its conclusion that there was a
"single employer" for purposes of the Act rested on
consideration of "all the circumstances" of the case.
From the foregoing. we conclude that "single em-
ployer" status, for purposes of the National Labor Re-
lations Act. depends upon all the circumstances of the
case, that not all of the "controlling criteria" specified
by the Cupreme Court need be present; that, in addi-
tion to the criterion of common ownership or financial
control. the other criteria, whether or not they are
present at the top level of management, are "control-
ling" indicia of the actual exercise of the power of
common ownership or financial control: and that the
standard for evaluating such exercise of power is
whether, as a matter of substance, there is the "arm's
length relationship found among unintegrated compa-
nies."
In a later decision. L R B . 14 e/ itlc -4 .A l niertin thrlih:etr ( '.
443 F.2d 19. 21 (9th ('r. 1971). the Ninth Circuit. citing SAret
.
, said
thai no) one of the four criteria is controlling
t I he arm's length" test makes meaningful the Board's reference in
(ito,. ( urp's. Inc., supra at 484. to "realities of commercial organiza-
tion." It was applied hb thil court In .4-rIicr!an fed /, Tei.ssn i &
Rad,, r s. .1. R ., 149 liS.App D.('. 272. 42 F d 8S7 (1972)
"Petitioner relied hesiIs n % I R B Ral ,}a 7i, & IStch
. 1320 F 2d 77 6th (ir. 193) n which the ourt .id. at 81
It requires a greater degree f credulit than is possessed h this
('ouri tio accept the slew that lIhe subsidi.ars' operating officers
could inaugurate or establih a lahor policN thai did not meet
lith the absolute appro al f he hoard of directors jof the parent
compan? I
So Iui. we are persuaded that South Prairie's president. hasing decided
or. .l least. recommended that South Prairie he actvlaled in Oklahoma.
was not free agent to .alter South Pralrie's nnunimn polic
In most cases the question of single employer arises
where two entities each have their own work force but are
nonetheless interrelated. In the instant case, the Roxie
Partnership had no work force until it reopened the Roxie
Theatre on September 28. 1977. BTC claims that b that
time it had no employees at the Roxie Theatre. Thus. in-
stead of dealing with parallel businesses, we are concerned
here with the continuation of a single business (the Roxie
Theatre) involving identical bargaining units. If the situa-
tion involved an arm's-length transaction between unrelat-
ed entities, the principles of law relating to successorship
would govern. However, where there is a close relation be-
tween the entities it is appropriate to apply the law relating
to single employers.
BLUMENFELD TH ATRES CIRCUIT
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
b. The interrelation of operations
The Roxie Partnership owns the building in which the
Roxie Theatre is located. After the theatre reopened on
September 28, 1977, the Roxie Partnership managed the
Roxie Theatre. Before the close on September 6, 1977,
BTC managed the theatre. Both before and after the close
the Roxie Partnership and BTC had many interrelations.
BTC houses and supplies an office for Allan Blumenfeld,
who is the managing partner of the Roxie Partnership as
well as a partner in BTC. BTC both before and after the
close performed all the administrative functions for the
Roxie Theatre, including the processing of payroll checks.
All bookkeeping and accounting functions were and are
performed at the BTC office. All purchasing was and is
done through BTC. BTC did and does the booking of mov-
ies for the theatre. In this case the interrelations between
the Blumenfeld family cannot be separated from the inter-
relation of operations. Allan Blumenfeld is the managing
partner of the Roxie Partnership, and in addition is a gen-
eral partner in BTC. BTC managed the theatre until the
close and conducted all labor relations through its general
partner, Nathan Blumenfeld, who is Allan's uncle. Joseph
Blumenfeld, who is Allan's father, makes the key decisions
within BTC and is in overall charge of a number of Blu-
menfeld holdings. Robert Blumenfeld, who allegedly was
an employee of Cinerama, was housed at the Blumenfeld
Building and was required to report to BTC. Cinerama was
the lessor of the theatre, but its role appears to be limited to
the financial one of collecting money on its investment. By
agreement with the Blumenfelds, Cinerama had neither an
ownership nor a management function in the operation of
the theater. Cinerama never assumed any role with regard
to labor relations. After Cinerama dropped out of the pic-
ture and the Roxie Partnership reopened the theatre, BTC
continued to pay rent to the Roxie Partnership from a Cin-
erama account. The rent was paid without any offset for
the use of the leased property or the use of Cinerama
equipment by the Roxie Partnership.
c. Common management
Allan Blumenfeld is the only general partner in the Rox-
ie Partnership. As such, he has the sole right to manage
partnership affairs. Allan is also one of three general part-
ners in BTC with a 23-3/4 percent interest. The other two
partners are Allan's father, Joseph, and his uncle, Nathan.
Thus the management of both the Roxie Partnership and
BTC is fully controlled by a closely knit family group. BTC
is controlled and managed by managing partner Joseph
Blumenfeld, his brother, Nathan, and his son, Allan. The
Roxie Theatre is managed solely by Allan Blumenfeld,
who sometimes functions as general partner of the Roxie
Partnership and sometimes as a general partner in BTC.
All of them maintain their offices at the Blumenfeld Build-
ing.
d. Centralized control of labor relations
Before the close of the Roxie on September 6, 1977, Na-
than Blumenfeld, a partner in BTC, handled all labor rela-
tions matters for the Roxie Theatre and dealt with the
Unions. After the reopening of the theatre on September
28, 1977, Allan Blumenfeld, a general partner in both the
Roxie Partnership and BTC, assumed that labor relations
role. Allan Blumenfeld chose for that purpose to appear as
the general partner of the Roxie Partnership. However, at
the same time he was a partner in BTC. I am unconvinced
that Allan Blumenfeld can so easily shed his role as partner
in BTC and assume a completely independent role for the
Roxie Partnership. As the managing partner of BTC, Jo-
seph Blumenfeld makes decisions for the partnership that
are binding on his son, Allan. It is unrealistic to assume
that Joseph Blumenfeld and BTC have no input with re-
gard to the labor relations and other actions of Allan Blu-
menfeld when Allan assumes the role of general partner of
the Roxie Partnership as distinguished from a partner in
BTC. Under these circumstances, I find that there is cen-
tralized control of labor relations.
e. Ownership
Members of the Blumenfeld family own all of BTC. Al-
lan has a 23-3/4 percent interest in the share of profits,
Nathan has a 23-3/4 percent interest and Joseph has a
52-1/2 percent interest. The Blumenfeld family only has a
minority interest in the Roxie Partnership. Allan Blumen-
fld has a 5-2/3 percent interest and other close members
of his family have an additional 27-2/3 percent. The
partnership's 66-2/3 percent is owned by four other indi-
viduals who are not members of the Blumenfeld family.
f. Other factors
BTC and the Roxie Partnership do not maintain an
arm's-length relationship such as is found among uninte-
grated companies. The Roxie Partnership did pay some of
the costs of administration to BTC after the theater was
reopened but most of their relationship showed very close
dealings. BTC furnished an office for Allan Blumenfeld
without compensation, even though Allan Blumenfeld per-
formed duties for the Roxie Partnership from that office.
!ITC continued to pay rent to the Roxie Partnership from
its Cinerama account even though Cinerama could have
claimed an offset against the rent for the use of its equip-
ment and for the use of the theater building by the Roxie
Partnership while Cinerama still had a leasehold interest in
it. BTC performed many services for the Roxie Partner-
ship. In general the relationship appeared to be one of a
close family rather than one between independent compa-
nies.
Giving due weight to the interrelation of operations, the
common management, the centralized control of labor re-
lations, the partially common ownership, the lack of arm's-
length relationship commonly found among unintegrated
companies, and the close family connection, I find that
BTC and the Roxie Partnership were and are a single em-
ployer for the purpose of collective bargaining. As found
above, when the Roxie Theatre closed on September 6,
1977. BTC had a duty to bargain in good faith with the
Unions and was bound by the collective-bargaining con-
tracts then in effect. The Roxie Partnership did not deal
BLUMENFELD TEATRES CIRCUIT 217
with any different bargaining units. When it reopened the
theatre on September 28. 1977. the identical bargaining
units were present even though the employees were differ-
ent. As a single employer with BTC. the Roxie Partnership
had the same bargaining obligations as BTC. Like BTC.
the Roxie Partnership had the obligation to bargain in
good faith with the Unions and to honor the outstanding
contracts. Cf. Appalachian Con.struction, Inc., 235 NLRB
685.
4. The 8(a)(5) and (3) allegations
As found above, BTC and the Roxie Partnership consti-
tuted a single employer and were bound by the current
contracts with the Unions. Neither BTC nor the Roxie
Partnership made the decision to close the theater. That
was done by Cinerama. There is insufficient evidence in
the record to establish that BTC or the Roxie Partnership
influenced that decision, even though Cinerama's role with
regard to the theatre was extremely limited. Cinerama had
invested money, had a leasehold interest, and was entitled
to collect money from the operation of the theatre. Though
it could not walk away from its leasehold obligations
(which were limited to the payment of rent), it could and
did decide to discontinue its interest in the operation of the
theater. That decision resulted in the temporary closing of
the theater. BTC and the Roxie Partnership, as a single
employer, decided to reopen the theater. Thus the single
employer which constituted both the ownership of the
building and the prior management of the theatre reopened
the theater on September 28, with that part of the single
employer which owned the theater assuming the manage-
ment function. The hiatus in the theater's operation, which
lasted less than 4 weeks, was not sufficient to terminate the
bargaining obligation that BTC and the Roxie Partnership
had with the Unions, or to terminate the contracts. BTC
and the Roxie Partnership took advantage of Cinerama's
decision to walk away from the Roxie Theatre by repudiat-
ing the collective-bargaining contracts in midterm, by re-
fusing to honor the terms and conditions of the contracts,
by withdrawing recognition from the Unions, and by mod-
ifying the terms and conditions of employment of bargain-
ing unit employees. By engaging in such conduct during
the term of the contracts, BTC and the Roxie Partnership
violated Section 8(a)(5) and () of the Act. Allied Chemical
& Alkali Workers of North America, Local Union No. I v.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.. 404 U.S. 157, 185-186 (1971);
J. D. Lunsford Plumbing, Healing and Air Conditioning,
Inc., 237 NLRB 128 (1978); Appalachian Conrtruction, Inc..
235 NLRB 685: Los Angeles Marine Hardware Co., a Divi-
sion of Mission Marine Associates. Inc., et al., 235 NLRB
720 (1978).
Cinerama made the decision which resulted in the tem-
porary closing of the theater. However, BTC and the Roxie
Partnership had the obligation to notify the Unions about
the closing and to bargain concerning the effects of that
closing on bargaining unit employees. Cf. Joseph Macaluso,
Inc., d/b/a Lemon Tree, 231 NLRB 1168 (1977). Though
the employees were notified in advance of the closing, the
Unions were not. When the employees informed the
Unions of the situation, union representatives called Na-
than Blumenfeld, who handled labor relations for BTC,
but were unable to reach him. After the closing but before
the reopening, union representatives spoke to Gibbs, the
new manager who had been hired by the Roxie Partner-
ship. Gibbs told them that he had no authority and he
consistently refused to name the people who did have au-
thority in the theater. The union representatives were not
permitted to open a meaningful dialog with regard to the
temporary close or the reemployment of the former em-
ployees. The lack of bargaining cannot be attributed to the
Unions' failure to insist on their rights. They attempted to
contact Nathan Blumenfeld. who did not make himself
available, and they did contact Gibbs, who engaged in
nothing but obfuscation. BTC and the Roxie Partnership
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act by failing to
notify the Unions concerning the temporary close in opera-
tions of the Roxie Theatre, and by refusing to bargain with
the Unions concerning the effects of that close and the
subsequent reopening on bargaining unit employees. Cf.
Brockway Motor Trucks, Division of Mack Trucks, Inc., 230
NLRB 1002 (1977).
As found above, Cinerama and not BTC or the Roxie
Partnership made the decision that resulted in the tempo-
rary close of the theater. The discharge of the employees in
the two bargaining units flowed in part from that decision.
However, as indicated above, BTC and the Roxie Partner-
snip used that decision as a lever to separate themselves
from the Unions. They violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of
the Act by repudiating their outstanding contracts and
withdrawing recognition from the Unions. The discharge
of all bargaining unit employees and their replacement
with nonunion employees can only be viewed as part of its
overall strategy to dislodge the Unions from the theater. By
discharging the bargaining unit employees on September 6.
1977, when the theater temporarily closed and by refusing
to reinstate them on September 28. when the theater re-
opened, BTC and the Roxie Partnership violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Cf. Los Angeles Marine Hard-
ware Co., supra,; Helrose Bindery, Inc., 240 NLRB 499
(1973); Rushton & Mercier Woodworking Co.. Inc., 203
NLRB 123 (1973), unpublished opinion. 86 LRRM 2151,
'5 LC 10.384 (st Cir. 1974).
I1 THF EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of BTC and the Roxie Partnership set
forth in section II, above. occurring in connection with
their operations described in section I. above, have a close.
intimate, and substantial relationship 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.
' HE REMED
Having found that BTC and the Roxie Partnership have
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend
that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
BLUMENFELD THEATRES IRCUIT 2?
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that on September 6, 1977, BTC and the
Roxie Partnership discharged the projectionists and jani-
tors then employed at the Roxie Theatre, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I recommend that BTC
and the Roxie Partnership be ordered to offer those em-
ployees reinstatement and to make them whole for any loss
of wages and other benefits resulting from their discharge
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to
the amount each normally would have earned as wages
and other benefits from the date of the discharges to the
date on which reinstatement is offered, less net earnings
during that period.
Having found that BTC and the Roxie Partnership re-
fused to honor the terms and conditions of the outstanding
contracts with the Unions and that said Employers em-
ployed projectionists and janitors after the theatres re-
opened on September 28, 1977 at less than the contract
rates, I recommend that BTC and the Roxie Partnership
make those individuals whole for any losses they may have
suffered by reason of said Employers' failure and refusal to
honor the collective-bargaining agreements, including all
contributions the Unions would have received in accor-
dance with the agreements.'1
All backpay and other moneys due shall be computed in
the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed in
the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).'9
In his closing argument, counsel for the Charging Party
argued that the Unions should be awarded attorneys' fees.
I find that the defenses raised by Respondents in this case
are debatable rather than frivolous and that such a special
remedy is not warranted.2 0
In view of the seriousness of the violations, I recommend
that BTC and the Roxie Partnership be ordered to cease
and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
to them in Section 7 of the Act. 21
It is recommended that BTC and the Roxie Partnership
be ordered to preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due.
It is further recommended that BTC and the Roxie Part-
nership be ordered to recognize and bargain with the
Unions as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate bargaining units.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. BTC and the Roxie Partnership are a single employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
See Appalachian (onstructlion, Inc.. upra
See, generally. Isis Plumhing & Heating (Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
2( C. Tiidee Produiirs, Inc.. 194 NLRB 1234 1972). enfd as modified 502
F.2d 349 (D.C . ('r. 1974).
2 IN.L.R B. v. Entoistle Mfg Co(. 120(1 2d 52. 536 (4th ir. 1941): B1-,
Ion Pet SupplI. Inc.. 227 NlRB 1891 (1977)
2. Projectionists Local 169 and Janitors Local 121 are,
and each is, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following units are appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining:
(a) All projectionists employed by the employer-mem-
bers of San Francisco Theatre Employers Association, ex-
cluding all other employees including guards and supervis-
ors as defined in the Act.
(b) All janitorial employees employed by employer-
members of East Bay Theatre Association, excluding all
other employees including guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
4. (a) Projectionists Local 169 is the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees of BTC
and the Roxie Partnership employed at the Roxie Theatre
in the bargaining unit set forth in 3(a), above.
(b) Janitors Local 121 is the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees of BTC and the
Roxie Partnership employed at the Roxie Theatre in the
bargaining unit set forth in 3(b), above.
5. At all times material herein BTC and the Roxie Part-
nership have been and are now bound by collective-bar-
gaining agreements with said Unions in the respective bar-
gaining units set forth above.
6. By repudiating said contracts in midterm, by refusing
to honor the terms and conditions of said contracts, by
withdrawing recognition from said Unions, by unilaterally
modifying the terms and conditions of employment of bar-
gaining unit employees during the term of those contracts,
by failing to notify said Unions concerning the temporary
closing and the reopening of the Roxie Theatre, and by
refusing to bargain with said Unions concerning the effects
of that closing and the subsequent reopening on bargaining
unit employees, BTC and the Roxie Partnership violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. By discharging the employees employed in the above-
described bargaining units on September 6, 1977, when the
Roxie Theatre temporarily closed and by refusing to rein-
state said employees on September 28 when the Roxie The-
atre reopened, BTC and the Roxie Partnership violated
section 8(a)(3) and () of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 22
The Respondents, Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit, a part-
nership (also known as Blumenfeld Theatres, a partner-
ship), and Roxie Oakland Theatre, a partnership, Oakland,
-2 In the event nil exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted b the Board and become
its indigs. conclusions and Order, and all obhjectrlns thereto shall he
deemed waived or all purposes.
BLUMENFELD THEATRES CIRCUIT 219
Calfornia, their officers, agents. successors. and assigns.
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. Local 169. as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of their em-
ployees employed at the Roxie Oakland Theatre in the fol-
lowing unit:
All projectionists employed by the employer-members
of San Francisco Theatre Employers Association. ex-
cluding all other employees including guards and sup-
ervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Theatrical
Janitors Union, Local 121, Service Employees Internation-
al Union, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of their employees employed at the Roxie Oakland
Theatre in the following unit:
All janitorial employees employed by employer-mem-
bers of East Bay Theatre Association, excluding all
other employees including guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(c) Repudiating their outstanding collective-bargaining
contracts with those Unions, refusing to honor the terms
and conditions of those contracts, withdrawing recognition
from said Unions, unilaterally modifying the terms and
conditions of employment of employees in said bargaining
units during the term of those contracts. failing to notif\
said Unions concerning the temporary closing and the re-
opening of said theater, and refusing to bargain with said
Unions concerning the effects of such closing and the sub-
sequent reopening on bargaining unit employees.
(d) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against anN
employee in order to avoid their bargaining or contractual
obligations with said Unions, or because of the union
membership of that employee.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request. recognize and bargain collectively
with International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.
Local 169, and Theatrical Janitors Union, Local 121. Ser-
vice Employees International Union. as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of their employees employed at the
Roxie Oakland Theatre in the respective bargaining units
set forth above.
(h) Honor and abide by their outstanding collective-bar-
gaining contracts with said Ulnions.
(c) Offer the employees in those bargaining units who
were discharged when the Roxie Oakland 'Theatre closed
on September 6, 1977. immediate and full reinstatement of
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist. to sub-
stantiall? equivalent positions. without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make those
employees whole for their loss of earnings and other hene-
fits in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy'."
(d) Make the individuals who were hired in those bar-
gaining units after the Roxie Oakland Theatre reopened on
September 28, 1977. whole for any losses they max have
suffered by reason of the failure and refusal hb said Em-
ployers to honor the collective-bargaining agreements de-
scribed above. including all contributions said Unions
would have received in accordance with those agreements.
in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(e) Preserve and. upon request. make available to the
Board or its agents. for examination and copying. all pa'-
roll records. social security payment records, timecards.
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sar? to analyze the amount of backpa' due.
(f) Post at the Roxie Oakland Theatre copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice.
on forms provided bh the Regional Director for Region 32.
after being duly signed by said Emploers. shall be posted
by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter. in con-
spicuous places. including all places where notices to em-
plovees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by said Employers to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by an, other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 32, in srit-
ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
theN have taken to comply herewith.
I1i tlh ei, il llhat Ilhis ()ricr C enforcd h .a jud Leni of a. t llied
Stale ( urt f ppeals, the .lds n the lollhe re.ldll~ "Polcd h O)dcr
of the Ntablth [ abor Relations Board" shall mvd "Psted Purxuanl io
Julid lelt iof the Illcd States ( urt If Appeals Linforcini in ()rder f Ihc
N .t,,njl. I .lh r Rlaion. , Blrd'"
BLUMENEELD TH ATRES CIRCIT