Business Supplies Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 121 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ETC. 121
Business Supplies Corporation of America, Data Processing
Supplies Division and International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO
Business Supplies Corporation of America, Data Processing
Supplies Division and International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO
usiness Supplies Corporation of America, Data Processing
Supplies Division and Andrew F. Sisco . Cases Nos. 22-CA-
1568, Z2-CA-1627, and 22-CA-1632. May 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Jenkins].
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 Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found that on and after March 22, 1963, the
Respondent, a manufacturer of tabulating cards for use in IBM ma-
chines, refused to bargain with the Union which requested recognition
for an appropriate unit comprised of about 18 employees in the card
design and etching departments in Respondent's Monmouth Junction,
New Jersey, plant. The Respondent contends, inter alia, that it was
under no obligation to bargain with the Union because of the inap-
propriateness of the requested unit which excluded the 70 employees
in the manufacturing department at the same location. We find merit
in the Respondent's position.
The complaint alleged, and the Trial Examiner found, that all card
design and etching employees, including draftsman, clerk, photogra-
pher, proofreader, plater, and photoengraver employees of the Re-
spondent employed at its Monmouth Junction plant, but excluding all
147 NLRB No. 17.
122 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office clerical employees, all other employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for collective-bargaining purposes.
The record shows that Respondent is engaged in the production of
tabulating cards and has, in addition to the Monmouth Junction facil-
ity which is the only one involved in this proceeding, 16 manufactur-
ing plants and 3 card design centers in various parts of the country.
As already indicated, there is located at Monmouth Junction a manu-
facturing department, a card design department, and the Respondent's
only etching department.' The order office in the manufacturing
building processes purchase orders from customers by assigning a
number thereto and bringing a rough drawing of the desired card to
the building where the card design department "draws up the design"
and sends a proof thereof to the customer for approval. After it is
returned, the proof or negative is opaqued in the card design depart-
ment. The etching department in a neighboring building then ex-
poses the negative on a machine that produces an electro, also known
as a cylinder or plate, which the manufacturing department uses to
run off as many tabulating cards as are required by the customer?
The employees in the three Monmouth Junction departments all go
through a training program for their respective jobs. They receive
"simi]ar wages" as well as the same fringe benefits and vacations. Al-
though there have been no permanent transfers from one department
to another, employees from the card design and etching departments
have been temporarily assigned to the manufacturing department for
as long as 3 weeks.
From the foregoing evidence, there does not appear to be sufficient
justification for finding that a Monmouth Junction two-department
unit which excludes the manufacturing department is appropriate.
In view of the common interests and conditions of employment of the
employees in the three Monmouth Junction departments, and the ex-
tent of integration of their operations, we find, contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that the only appropriate Monmouth Junction unit is one
which embraces the employees of all three departments at that loca-
tion. We therefore conclude on the state of the present record that
Respondent was under no obligation to bargain with the Union for
the employees in the Monmouth Junction card design and etching
departments. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint insofar as
it alleges that Respondent refused to bargain in violation of Section
8(a) (5) of the Act.
x There is no history of collective bargaining for the employees at Monmouth Junction.
$ The card design centers outside Monmouth Junction also receive customer orders and
draw cards the proofs of which are sent to the Respondent 's etching department in Mon-
mouth Junction for preparation of an electro that is shipped to a regional manufacturing
plant where the desired number of cards are run off.
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA , ETC. 123
The Trial Examiner correctly found in his Decision that the date of
Andrew F. Sisco's discriminatory discharge was June 10, 1963, but
The Remedy inadvertently misstated the date as March 20, 1963. We
therefore amend The Remedy by finding that Sisco was discharged on
the later date.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed to the extent
that it alleges that the Respondent violated' Section 8(a) (5) and (1)
of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union for employees in an
appropriate unit.
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that
the Respondent, Business Supplies Corporation of America, Data
Processing Supplies Division, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, with the following modifications :
1. Paragraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of the Recommended Order are
deleted.
2. The paragraph of the notice which refers to Respondent's obliga-
tion to bargain collectively with the Union is deleted.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed on April 23 and June 6, 1963, by International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
Union or Charging Party, and a charge filed on June 12, 1963, by Andrew F. Sisco,
an individual, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein-
after called the General Counsel1 and the Board , respectively, by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-second Region (Newark, New Jersey), issued its consoli-
dated amended complaint dated July 25, 1963,2 against Business Supplies Corpora-
tion of America, Data Processing Supplies Division , herein called the Respondent.
The complaint alleged that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and ( 5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, as amended ; herein called the Act. Copies of the charges , complaint, and
consolidated amended complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
upon the Charging Parties and Respondent.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the consolidated
complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices . Pursuant to
notice , a hearing thereon was held at Trenton, New Jersey, from September 4 through
6, 1963, inclusive , before Trail Examiner Thomas S. Wilson. All parties anneared
at the hearing , were represented by counsel or representative , and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to produce , examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to in-
troduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues, and were advised of their right
to argue orally upon the record and to file briefs and proposed findings and con-
clusions or both. Oral argument was waived. Briefs were received from General
Counsel and Respondent on October 4, 1963.
I This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing.
'2 All dates herein are in the year 1963 unless otherwise specified.
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Business Supplies Corporation of America is, and bias been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of
the State of Massachusetts.
At all times material herein Business Supplies Corporation of America has main-
tained its principal office at 90 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey, and various
other places of business, plants, and facilities in the States of New Jersey, California,
and Ohio, including Data Processing Supplies Division at Route 1, Monmouth Junc-
tion, New Jersey, herein called Monmouth Junction plant, and is now, and at all
times material herein has been continuously, engaged at said places of business,
plants, and other facilities in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of tabulating
cards and related products. Business Supplies Monmouth Junction plant is .the only
facility involved in this proceeding.
In the course and conduct of its business operations during the calendar year 1962,
said operations being representative of its operations at all times material herein,
Respondent caused to be manufactured, sold, and distributed at its Monmouth
Junction plant, products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which
products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said
plants in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than the
State of New Jersey.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
On December 28, 1962, Respondent's board of directors met. Respondent Presi-
dent Richard C. Conole reported on the Respondent's prospects for the following
year. According to the minutes of that meeting, Conole's report was as, follows:
The chairman then called on Richard C. Conole to discuss the outlook for
1963. Mr. Conole stated that the future looked bright but that the Company
had not been as successful in obtaining as large a portion of the Federal Govern-
ment contract as it has previously had, for the first 6 months of 1963. It would
thus appear that several of the Company's plants could possibly have large
drops in volume but that the backlog of orders should carry these plants through
until approximately March 1963. Mr. Lincoln stated that it was the hope the
increased sales coverage and training program would be paying dividends in
increased commercial volume by that time, and that it would not be necessary
to lay off any personnel. Discussion ensued including suggestions, one of which
was to have a training program for a plant personnel similar to, although more
thorough than, that provided for sales-personnel. By on the job training in
different jobs during periods of slowdown experienced men could be utilized in
Plants, the Quality Control Laboratory, Order Offices, Card Design Centers,
and Photo Engraving Centers. This could also provide previously trained per-
sonnel prior to the Company's expansion of any new Plants, Card Design Cen-
ters, or Photo Engraving Centers. This program would also provide the
employees with more opportunities for advancement since it was the policy to
promote from within wherever possible, and this would give management a
chance to view an employee's ability while doing other jobs while increasing
the employee's knowledge of the industry. Mr. Lincoln stated that a program
of this type could be of great benefit to the Company. After further discussion
it was agreed that by March 15, 1963, the officers should have a better picture
of the Company's position since it was very possible that the smaller competitor
who had taken more of the Government business than it could produce might
very well turn down many orders which would then be awarded to -this company
as second-lowest bidder. It was therefore agreed to withhold any action on
layoffs other than normal or the training program until the March 15th date.
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ETC . 125
Despite this report of its present or impending loss of the Government contract,
Respondent at its Monmouth card design sand etching departments proceeded to hire
the following seven employees: Lloyd Johns on January 7, 1963, Henry Jones on
January 15, David Britton on February 4, Ernest Hunt,3- William Ritterson on
February 25, Tony Delre, Jr., on February 25, and Harry Read on March 4. When
hired these employees were told that their employment was "permanent."
When Respondent opened its facilities at Monmouth Junction about 5 years ago, it
started with a card design department and an etching department. The card design
department designs tabulating cards used in IBM machines according to the cus-
tomer's desires and needs. After the customer has approved the card so designed,
the card design is then sent to the etching department which transfers the card design
to an electro which is thereafter used in the printing of the customer's cards in the
manufacturing departments. -
As of March, the card design department was housed by Respondent in a small
building separated by a few feet from a second small building which housed the seven
employees of the etching department. The I1 employees of the card design depart-
ment are supervised by Vice President Fredrick W. Ruffner and Manager-Foreman
Paul Garrison. The seven employees of the etching department are under the su-
pervision ,of Vice President Garland Sellers and Manager-Foreman John E. Sheridan.
Each vice president has his individual office in the building housing his indivdual
department and separated from the working area of the employees only by a door.
Sellers' office, at least, has -a glass window into the work area so that he can observe
the employees at work.
Sometime after the original installation of the card design and etching departments
at Monmouth Junction, Respondent's landlord, a building contracting concern, con-
structed on the same plot of land a larger building separated from the two buildings
housing the original two departments .by the landlord's own building where Respond-
ent began operating what it calls its manufacturing division where the tabulating
cards are actually printed, cut, boxed, and shipped to the customer. As of March
the 70 employees engaged in the operations,of the manufacturing division were under
the supervision of Plant Manager Angelo Codispote. Prior to, the commencement
of the manufacturing division at Monmouth Junction the electros used in the
printing of the cards were shipped from Monmouth Junction to other manufactur-
ing divisions of Respondent located elsewhere in the United States.
Prior to March 20, 1963, there had been no interchange of employees between
these three departments except on rare occasions when the card design or etching
departments happened to be very slack when one or two of the employees from the
slack department would be transferred for a period varying from a day or two to as
much as 2 weeks to the manufacturing division where the transferees would perform
any sort of odd jobs which might be available. When business picked up in the
department from which the employee had been transferred, that employee would re-
turn to his original department. Such transfers were rare and of short duration.
The record here is silent on any transfers from the manufacturing division to either
card design or etching-until March 20.
Union activities at the Respondent's Monmouth Junction plant began on the
morning, and again in the afternoon, of March 11 when Jean Borics and Ruben
Weinberger, IUE officers from other plants in the vicinity, handed out leaflets to
employees,of Respondent. Ruffner requested and received a copy of the leaflet she
was passing out from Borics and later that day ordered Weinberger "off our prop-
erty." Sellers came from his office to get a copy of the leaflet from Weinberger.4
As he left work on the afternoon of March 11, employee Raymond Cox, the
photographer in the card design department, received a batch of these union circulars
from Borics for the employees who were working overtime in the card design depart-
ment that night. On the morning of March 12, Cox distributed these leaflets to
those employees who had not received them the previous day. During the discus-
sions that day the men from both the card design and etching departments decided
they desired to join the Union and delegated Cox to secure union authorization cards
for them to sign. This he did on the evening of March 12.
a The record does not disclose Hunt's hiring date. But on March 20 Respondent dis-
charged the four men in these two departments with the least seniority. Hunt was one
of those discharged Therefore his date of hire must have been after February 4 but prior
to March 20
4 Both Ruffner and Sellers testified that these events occurred on March 27. This dis-
pute is resolved hereinafter.
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the morning of March 13, prior to the start of the workday, Cox distributed
these cards to the employees of the two departments. By the evening of March 15
all 18 employees of card design and etching had returned signed union authorization
cards to Cox who thereupon turned them into the union office. Employee Andrew
F. Sisco, a 5-year employee in the etching department, was elected or selected as the
shop steward for the two departments.
On March 20, Ruffner called in employees Read and Hunt while Sellers called
in Ritterson •and Delre. Each of the vice presidents told the employees that due to a
"development program" Respondent was going to shift men around in the plant and
that, as they were the men with the least seniority, their services would no longer
be needed. Sellers, at least, added that, if at any time work picked up, Respondent
would let the men know and they could have their jobs back again.5
By letter dated March 21 and received by Respondent in the due course of the
mail on March 22, Union Organizer Arnie Fiore advised the Respondent as follows:
Please be advised that this organization, the International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, represents the majority of your em-
ployees (excluding printers), for the purpose of collective bargaining with re-
spect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment.
Kindly advise us when and where our representative may meet with yours for
the above mentioned purpose.
Respondent never answered this request.
On March 22, the day the Union's request for recognition was received by Respond-
ent, the Monmouth Junction executives of Respondent held a meeting. Shortly
after the conclusion of this executive conference Ruffner, with Foreman Paul Gar-
rison present in the card design department and Sellers in the etching department,
called a number of their departmental employees to their respective offices, described
for them the purposes of this so-called "development program," i.e., to train em-
ployees in the various phases of Respondent's business, informed them that this
program was suddenly going ahead at full speed, and that in line with the said pro-
gram, card design and etching employees David Britton, Gilbert Flora, Lloyd
Johns, Henry Jones, David Weaver, and David Wriggins were to be transferred as
of March 25 to the manufacturing division.
On March 25 these six aforenamed employees from the card design and etching
departments were in fact transferred to the manufacturing department while 10
employees from the latter department were transferred to card design and etching.
About a week after these transfers had been made and when Sellers noted that
employee Ennis, an old-time employee of the card design department, was in fact
doing two jobs in that department due to the "incapability" 6 of the transferees from
the manufacturing department which slowed down the work of both the card
design and etching departments, Sellers told Ennis that "when this business is over,
I will take care of you."
Not having, received an answer to its request of March 21, the Union on March
27 filed a petition for certification with the Board in a unit described in said repre-
sentation petition as "draftsman, clerk, photographer, proofreader, plater and photo-
engraver," numbering 18 employees. Respondent received a copy of this petition
in the due course of mail.
About the first of April and after his transfer from etching to manufacturing
employee Johns spoke to Plant Manager Angelo Codispote about the wage increase
Johns was supposed to have had early in March. Codispote told Johns that he,
Codispote, "didn't like the attitude that [Johns] had and he wasn't going to recom-
mend me for the raise." Then the conversation turned to why the men had been
transferred to manufacturing and when they would return to their former jobs. On
this Codispote stated that "as soon as everything in the other building is settled,
you will go back to your old job."
About a week later, when Codispote informed Johns that he was going to recom-
mend Johns for the pay increase "but with the provision that [Johns'] attitude had
to change," Codispote reiterated that "when everything is settled," Johns would go
back to the other building.
When employee Jones, another transferee to manufacturing from etching, in-
quired when they would return to their former departments, Codispote answered
5 March 20 was the first time that any of the employees of the card design and etching
departments had heard of a development program.
6 Employee Potts, Respondent 's witness, described how busy he became in the etching
department because the transferees from manufacturing had proved , in his words, to be
"incapable."
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ETC. 127
that he "had no idea but when all this mess blows over we will know then." On
another occasion shortly thereafter Codispote stated that the return would be "when
this thing comes to a head."
On April 8 an informal conference was held between the parties in the Regional
Office at Newark. The question of the unit was discussed. Vice President Lincoln
insisted that all of Respondent's Monmouth Junction employees should be permitted
to vote.? When the Union rejected this, Respondent offered to accept the unit of
the card design and etching departments if the Union would give it written assurance
that it would not try to organize the manufacturing department in the event it lost
the card design-etching election. This request was refused. But the Union did
agree to Respondent's third request which was that Manager-Foremen Garrison and
Sheridan be included in the card design-etching unit. When Attorney Philips asked
to see the proof of the Union's majority representation, the Board field examiner
denied his request. Thus the meeting broke up without accomplishment.
At the request of Respondent a further informal conference was held on April 15.
At this time Respondent agreed to a unit composed of the card design and etching
departments and excluding the manufacturing department. Respondent then pro-
duced a list of the employees of those two departments as of April 12. Three times
Attorney Philips requested the Union's concurrence in the fact that only those per-
sons listed on the payroll were to be eligible to vote.in the election. Becoming
suspicious at this insistence , Fiore received permission to examine the list in private
where he discovered that the list contained the names of 8 permanent employees
who had executed union.cards and 10 employees who had been transferred tem-
porarily from the manufacturing department on March 25.
Upon returning to the conference the Union accused Respondent of "dirty tactics"
and threatened Respondent with 'a strike unless the dischargees of March 20 were
reinstated and the transferees of March 22 were returned to their original positions.
The conference broke up over these accusations and demands.
A hearing on the R petition was scheduled for April 23. During discussions prior
to the opening of the hearing the Union threatened Respondent again with 'a strike
unless Respondent returned the transferees and dischargees to their former positions
and accused Respondent of bad faith and "dirty tactics" in trying thus to defeat the
Union's organizational drive. When the hearing opened counsel for the Union an-
nounced that the Union was filing unfair labor practices against Respondent based
on these charges. The Hearing Officer recessed the hearing indefinitely in accord-
ance with the Board's long-established practice in that regard.
The original charge in this case was, in fact, filed that day.
On April 24 the original employees of the card design and etching departments
held a meeting with Union Organizer Fiore where it was decided to strike the
Respondent's plant the following day. Employee Potts cast the sole dissenting vote.
Promptly after the decision to strike had been taken, Potts telephoned Vice Presi-
dent Ruffner seeking advice as to what action Potts should take in regard to the strike.
According to Potts' testimony, Ruffner told him to use his own judgment.
Just prior to the union meeting that evening Jones again had inquired of Plant
Manager Codispote when the transferees would return to their original positions.
This time Codispote answered, "You will know tonight at your meeting."
The strike began on April 25 and ended on June 8 when Andrew Sisco, the Union's
shop steward, telephoned Respondent .and on behalf of all the strikers offered to
return to work unconditionally. The date of that return was mutually agreed to be
June 10.
On June 10 all the strikers returned to the plant. They were interviewed in-
dividually by Respondent's officials and, up to the last man, each was returned to the
job which he held as of the date of the strike, April 25.
The last man to be interviewed by Respondent's officials was Sisco. This interview
was short and sweet. Ruffner told Sisco, "Andy, I don't want to argue about it, but
your services are no longer wanted by this Company."
Sisco has never been reinstated.8
7 The Union had only one authorization card signed by an employee of the manufactur-
ing department.
8 Raymond Cox. the photographer in the card design department, did not report back to
work until June 22. Foreman Paul Garrison , who had joined the strikers on the picket
line, was also refused reinstatement at this time. The discharges or refusals to reinstate
both Cox and Garrison were included in the charges filed herein . For reasons best known
to himself the Regional Director dismissed the charges as to Cox and Garrison. The
Regional Director's action as to Cox is now under appeal to the General Counsel in
Washington.
128 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During May and early June Attorney Philips attempted on several occasions to
hold meetings with Fiore. Fiore was ieluctant , stating, in effect , that'the matter was
now in the hands of the Board and it might just as well rest there . At the hearing
Fiore explained his reluctance on the ground that all Philips desired to do was to
"talk."
On one occasion when Philips was out of town he suggested that Fiore and his
Co-Counsel Palaschak get together . When Fiore called Palaschak for an appoint-
ment, he asked Palaschak if he had authority to grant recognition . Palaschak
answered that he had no such authority,and was only authorized to explain the reasons
for the discharges. No meeting was held.
On July 15 Attorney Philips wrote Fiore as follows:
I have returned to my office from vacation . This is to again advise you that
we are ready , willing, and -able to bargain collectively with you or any other
authorized representative gat any time or place which is mutually convenient.
May I hear from you at your earliest convenience.
Upon receipt of a copy of the above letter the Acting Regional Attorney telephoned
Philips in regard thereto and wrote Philips as follows:
Reference is made to our telephone conversation of yesterday concerning the
above cases. One of the matters which we discussed was your letter dated
July 15, 1963 to Mr. Arnie Fiore of the I.U.E. Asa result of our conversation,
it is'my understanding that what you meant by this letter was that you were
prepared , on behalf of the above-named Employer , to meet with representatives
of the I.U.E. for the purpose of discussing certain issues concerning the scope
of the appropriate bargaining unit, and whether recognition would be extended to
the LU.E., but that you are not prepared at this time on behalf of the Employer
to recognize or bargain with the I.U.E. as the bargaining representative for a
unit of employees in the Employer 's card design and etching department.
I would appreciate your advising me whether my understanding of our con-
versation referred to above is incorrect . As you are aware, this information
is extremely relevant to the determination of the refusal to bargain charges filed
against the Employer by the I.U .E., and any further information which you may
be able to furnish us concerning this issue will be given serious consideration .9
Respondent's attorney answered the Acting Regional Director 's inquiry under date
of July 23 as follows:
Receipt of your letter dated July 17, 1963, is hereby acknowledged.
The use of the term "bargain collectively " in my letter to Mr. Arnie Fiore of
the IUE signifies that I was prepared as a representative of Business Supplies
Corporation of America to meet with Mr. Fiore for the purpose of discussing
with him any requests or propositions that he wished to make. The term was
not used as defined in Section 8d of the Act . This section places an obligation
upon the employer to meet with the representatives of the employees . As yet,
a representative of our employees has not been either selected , elected, or other-
wise certified by your Board. Because of an interest expressed by several other
unions who were advised of the election proceedings,10 in addition to the pend-
ency of other matters before the Board, I feel that I would be violating the rights
and interests of our employees if I were to meet with Mr. Fiore, or any other
individual, as the representative of our employees under such conditions.
In order that we may better understand each other in this matter, am I to
infer from your letter that Mr. Fiore or the IUE has status as the representative
of our employees prior to 'any determination thereof?
You will recall that during our recent telephone conversation , I asked you
whether or not the Board has certified the IUE as our bargaining unit. I had
previously asked this question of Mr. Cohn and Mr. Crevile . In each instance,
I was advised that ,the Board had not certified the IUE. I am not aware that
this determination-has been changed..
6 Like the Acting Regional Director , the Trial Examiner upon reading the July 15 letter
interrupted the hearing-to inquire as to. what "the fighting was about" in view of the
said letter with its implication of recognition . Respondent , assured the Trial Examiner
that no implication of recognition was intended in the 'letter.
is The basis for this statement was one inquiry by someone purporting to represent the
Teamsters. '
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ETC. 129
Pursuant to my letter of July 15, 1963, addressed to Mr. Fiore, a copy of
which was furnished your Board, this is to advise you that arrangements were
made with him to meet on July 22, 1963 , and the place and time were to be
decided by him. I heard nothing from him even though I stayed in my office
the entire day for the express purpose of being available for the proposed meet-
ing. Likewise , he has not communicated with me .today.
In view of the complete lack of cooperation on the part of Mr. Fiore , and the
fact that he appears to lack good faith in his negotiations , having walked out on
a conference and hearing called by the Board, and his failure to meet with me,
I hereby request that the charges as contained in Case No . 22-CA-1627 be
dismissed . [ Emphasis supplied.]
Thereafter the complaint herein issued.
B. Conclusions
1. The discharges and transfers of March 20-22
This is another one of those cases where the parties are in complete accord as
to the facts-with one obvious exception , to wit, Respondent 's knowledge or igno^
rance of the union organizational activities in the plant-and where the parties are
in just as complete disagreement as to the motivation underlying those facts.
General Counsel argues that the timing of the events alone without more shout
"discrimination ": Union organizational activity beginning March 11; the sudden
discharge of four union adherents in the card design and etching departments on
March 20 and 22; both the receipt by Respondent of the Union 's demand for recog-
nition in the card design and etching departments and Respondent 's sudden imple-
mentation of the so-called development (or training ) program by transferring 6 more
union adherents out of the unit and replacing them with 10 nonunion employees
from the manufacturing department . On timing alone, exclusive of all else, Gen-
eral Counsel has presented a strong prima facie case.
On the other hand, Respondent counters this prima facie case with the fact that,
as early as December 28, 1962, Respondent 's president had anticipated a decrease
in business from the expected loss of an unnamed - Government contract and in con-
nection with that had suggested the installation of this development program,
whereby employees would be transferred to other jobs so as to have the opportunity
to learn other phases of Respondent 's business ; that the March 20 discharges and the
March 22 transfers were all occasioned by this anticipated decrease in business and
the institution of the development program and so these events could not have been
discriminatory.
Superficially , and in the absence of any critical appraisal , Respondent 's defense
would appear to negate General Counsel 's prima facie case-especially if one can
accept the testimony of Vice President Ruffner nand Sellers that their first knowledge
of any union activity came on March 27 when they received union leaflets from
Local Union Officials Borics and Weinberger whom Ruffner ordered "off our prop-
erty"-facts identical to those which Borics and Weinberger testified occurred on
March 11, the date of the original distribution of union leaflets to Respondent's
employees . All four of these witnesses may be considered not totally disinterested
witnesses due to their respective positions as local union officials or as vice presidents
of Respondent respectively . It must also be noted here that Ruffner and Sellers
each acknowledged having "found " copies of the March 1l leaflets , each while clean-
ing.out a vacant desk in his respective department during the April 25 strike. This
last, of course , is possible but, at the very least, qualifies as a coincidence warranting
some skepticism.
The evidence disclosed that Vice Presidents Ruffner and Sellers each supervised
his own department of 11 and 7 employees , respectively , housed in its own small
separate building from his own private office therein with doors leading directly into
the working area. One such office at least had windows through which the vice
president could observe his employees at work . The relationship between the vice
president and his employees was thus close and intimate . The officers and em-
ployees were on a first-name basis. It thus seems improbable that leaflets and union
discussions could have gone unnoted in either department . There is no showing
that either officer was away from the plant on March 11 . Consequently , I have had
to resolve this conflict in favor of the testimony of Borics and Weinberger that the
disputed events occurred on March 11-not on M. 27.
756-236-65-vol. 147-10
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's development program requires a little study. It was supposedly
designed along the lines of the similar program in effect that I.B.M., the recognized
leader in the data processing field, as a training program intended to give worthy
employees a broader grasp of the whole of Respondent's business. The evidence in-
dicated that at I.B.M. such training was restricted to training within the employee's
own department-not throughout the whole plant.
Despite President Conole's mention of the program on December 28, the evidence
is conclusive that Respondent had no such program prior to March 20, 1963. In
fact there was little, if any, interchange of employees from one department to
another at Monmouth Junction until that date except on those rare occasions when
due to slack work one or two employees from card design or etching, would be sent
to manufacturing for a day or two to sweep floors, load boxcars, or any other odd
job which might be available. The longest period of any such transfer which any
witness was able to recall was 2 weeks. Thereafter the employee returned to his
original department.
Conole's statement of December 28 showed that the possibility of the installation
of the development program was contingent upon the anticipated decrease in busi-
ness due to the expected loss of this unnamed Government contract. While there
is some vague opal testimony in this record implying the loss of this Government
contract, there was certainly no documentary proof offered that said contract was
in fact lost or that Respondent's plant in March was suffering any reduction in its
usual workload. The undisputed testimony showed that card design and etching
had in fact been working overtime throughout that whole period since January.
The record also proves that since January 1963, Respondent had hired seven new
employees on a permanent basis in the card design and etching departments alone,
the last two of whom were hired as late as February 25 and March 4. It thus
appears from these facts and the -failure to produce the readily available company
records proving the contrary, if any existed, that Respondent's business did not fall
off in 1963 as anticipated.
The record further shows that in anticipation of the loss of this Government
contract Respondent had accelerated its effort to secure new civilian accounts. It
was admitted that such civilian accounts would increase the workload of card design
and etching considerably as civilian orders are in smaller quantities so that more
cards had to be designed and more electros made in order to fill such orders than
would be the case in the larger Government orders.
.Acknowledging the fact that essentially all data processing cards are similar,
Respondent's officials candidly admitted that new customers could be secured only
through better, more efficient and faster service, i.e., an order obtained from a
customer on one day, the card designed by card design the next day for the customer's
approval, the making of the necessary electro in etching, and printing the cards
therefrom in manufacturing the following day. That being the Respondent's sales
technique, it would seem logical that Respondent would keep its facilities, particu-
larly the service departments of card design and etching at their most efficient best.
Such a period hardly seems the propitious moment to start training "incapable"
employees to work in such critically important departments.
Yet in face of this critical situation, that is exactly what Respondent claims that
it did on March 20 and 22. Faced with this necessity for' the highest possible speed
and efficiency in card design and etching departments, Respondent not only com-
menced its training program there but, in fact, replaced more than 50 percent of its
trained experienced personnel in those two departments with untrained and, indeed,
"incapable" employees from manufacturing."
Thus both the time for starting such a development program appears unpropitious
and the training method adopted so unsuitable as to amount almost to, "the blind
leading the blind." Consequently Respondent's explanation is hardly convincing.
"The description is that of Respondent's most willing witness, one William Potts, who
was recalled from a Florida vacation in order to testify at the hearing and who at the
time of the organizational campaign had been a proofreader in etching, signed a union
authorization card and then immediately after his fellow employees had voted unani-
mously, except for his vote, to strike, had called Vice President Ruffner on the telephone
and requested advice as to what he, Potts, should do. According to the testimony of
Potts, Ruffner told him to use his own judgment. Although he did not join the picket
line, Potts did not report for work the first day of the strike, but did report the following
day, and throughout the rest of the strike with these "incapable" transferees as he re-
ferred to them. Upon his return from vacation, Potts is scheduled to train employees in
the etching department of Respondent's Chicago plant.
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ETC. 131
The above, together with the precipitant commencement of the program, lead to
the conclusion that the purpose of the program at that time was not the training of
employees but, on the contrary, as a method for combatting the then pressing union
activities which Respondent had recently discovered.
Before the strike of April 25, employee witnesses quote Plant Manager Codi-
spote-without denial by him as he was not called as a witness by Respondent nor
was he shown to be unavailable-as answering their questions as to when card
design and etching employees would be returned to their respective departments by
saying "When all this mess blows over," or "When this thing comes to a head,"
a clear reference to the still unsettled question of union recognition in the card
design and etching departments. Codispote's undenied answers thus seems to in-
dicate some definite causal connection between the transfers and the still unfinished
union business.
In this connection it must be noted that at the first meeting of the parties on
April 8, Respondent took the position that the unit which the Union had requested,
i.e., card design and etching, was inappropriate and that the only appropriate unit
consisted of all three departments. "Everybody ought to vote" was the way Vice
President Lincoln phrased it. As the Union had made no effort to organize the
printers of the manufacturing division and, in fact, had only one card signed by a
printer from the complement of 70, the outcome of such an election in such an
appropriate unit would be easily predictable.
In its brief, Respondent still argues that the card design ad etching unit is inap-
propriate and that this record is devoid of any evidence to the contrary. Respond-
ent's own witness, Potts, quite clearly, though perhaps equally inadvertently, provided
indisputable proof as to the difference in the skills required in the manufacturing
as compared to the other departments when he described the manufacturing de-
partment transferees as "incapable" in the etching department. The complete lack
of interchange of employees between these three departments until March 20 con-
firmed Potts' observation. Whereas the finished work of card design and etching
complement each other, the printing or manufacturing of the finished work of those
two departments can be and often has been,.done at any of Respondent's manufactur-
ing divisions located throughout the country. In fact Respondent has numerous
plants consisting of card design and etching departments without an attached manu-
facturing division. Monmouth Junction itself commenced aonly card design and
etching with the manufacturing department having been added several years later.
Respondent's contention as to ,the appropriateness of the unit seems to, depend upon
the exigencies of the moment because a few years ago at its California plant which,
like Monmouth Junction, has all three departments, Respondent agreed to an ap-
propriate unit consisting of the manufacturing department alone.
At the next meeting between the parties on April 15, Respondent announced its
willingness to agree to the appropriateness of the card design and etching unit con-
tingent upon two things: (1) The Union would agree in writing not to attempt to
organize the employees of the manufacturing division; 12 and (2) that the only em-
ployees who would be eligible to vote in the election were those listed on the payrolls
of those two departments for the week ending April 12. The first proviso was again
summarily rejected. A study of the April 12 payrolls proved the second might be
classified in the vernacular as a "gimmick." This April 12 payroll for the card design
and etching unit disclosed: 8 permanent card design and etching employees (union);
10 manufacturing employees temporarily assigned to card design and etching (non-
union). The acceptance of this requirement of Respondent would also have ex-
cluded the 6 or 10 permanent card design and etching employees then temporarily
transferred to manufacturing or discharged on March 20.
As even under Respondent's development program the transfers were temporary,
it is obvious that the payroll of April 12 was not the unit for which the Union had
petitioned. Respondent's insistence that the eligibility to vote was to be determined
by the April 12 payroll corroborates the impression that the transfers were not made
for the purpose of training but were made for the purpose of affecting the results
of the anticipated representation election. Respondent was willing to'permit a repre-
sentation election to be held provided that results satisfactory to Respondent could
be guaranteed in advance.
ss On a number of occasions the 'Board has held that an employer 's demand for such a
renunciation of the right to represent certain employees constituted a violation of the
rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the At and, therefore, a violation of
Section 8(a)(1).
132 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
The facts are convincing , and accordingly I must find, that with full knowledge of
the Union 's organizational activity Respondent discharged the four men on March 20
and transferred the six employees out of the -appropriate unit on March 22 in order
either to prevent or to interfere with the free and unhampered selection or rejection
of a bargaining agent by the employees legitimately in the appropriate unit, thereby
violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
2. The refusal to bargain
a. The appropriate unit
As noted heretofore, the similarity of skills, the similarity of interest , the comple-
mentary nature of the work performed in the card design , and etching departments
proved that these two departments constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargain-
ing. I so find.
In its brief , Respondent argues that "the extent of organization " is the only basis
on which the above unit can be found to be appropriate . It argues , as did Vice Presi-
dent Lincoln , that -the only appropriate unit consists of three departments combined
because, as Lincoln put it, it was "all one manufacturing process": The manufacture
of a tabulating card. That this argument is of little weight is shown by the fact that
Respondent has many plants throughout the country consisting solely of card design
and etching departments whose electros are shipped to manufacturing depart-
ments located elsewhere -throughout the country to be printed and thus made into
tabulating cards. Originally the Monmouth Junction plant consisted only of card
design and etching departments, manufacturing having been added only several years
later.
Of course it is perfectly possible for card design , etching, and manufacturing to
constitute an appropriate unit-,but that does not make the unit of card design and
etching inappropriate.13
Actually this contention by Respondent is only a reiteration of the argument it
made on April 8 in its attempt to prevent any or all of its employees from being able
to engage in collective bargaining.
I therefore find that a unit consisting of the employees of Respondent 's card design
and etching departments at Monmouth Junction constitute a unit appropriate for col-
lective bargaining.
b. The majority
As of March 22, the date of the receipt of the Union 's request for recognition,
there were 18 employees and 2 supervisors or managers , Paul Garrison and Jack
Sheridan, employed by Respondent in the appropriate unit above found. At least
16 of these 18 or 20 employees in the -appropriate unit had executed admittedly au-
thentic authorization cards on behalf of the Union at that time.
The other two employees did not testify and , therefore , the oral testimony that all
employees in the unit had executed such authorization cards by March 15 is not
absolutely confirmed by the executed cards placed in evidence.
At the meeting of April 15 Respondent demanded, and the Union agreed, that
Department Managers Garrison and Sheridan should be included in the appropriate
unit. As neither General Counsel nor Respondent produced any evidence as to the
supervisory nature of the duties -of -these two managers , I feel myself bound by the
agreement of the parties made at that time and, therefore , find that Garrison and
Sheridan should be included in the appropriate unit.
In either event it is clear that the Union was at the time of making its request for
recognition the representative of at least the large majority, if not the unanimous
choice, of the employees in the appropriate unit. I so find.
c. The refusal
Recognition is not a bargainable subject. It is a matter of right, depending solely
upon the Union's status as the majority representative of the employees in an appro-w
priate unit.
Originally Respondent sought to evade the necessity of recognizing the Union by
failing to answer the Union's request therefor. When thwarted in that attempt by
filing,of the R petition, Respondent sought to negotiate the question of recognition.
When thwarted in that endeavor, Respondent resorted to the tactic of eliminating
the union adherents and permanent employees in the appropriate unit from participat-
ing in any such representation election and loading the voting list with nonunion tem-
's See Norfolk Southern Bus Corporation, 66 NLRB 1165.
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ETC. 133
porary employees through the device of the so-called development program. The
evidence is conclusive that Respondent had no intention of recognizing the Union as
the majority representative nor to bargain collectively with that union.
In its brief Respondent now.contends that it had a "good-faith doubt" as the
Union's majority representation. The "good-faith" of that alleged doubt is repudiated
by Respondent's insistence that the only employees who should be eligible to vote
in the Board election were those on a payroll .list loaded with a majority of tem-
porary nonunion employees. This tactic disproves any such alleged doubt as to the
Union's majority representation.
One other matter requires mention here:
On July 15 Respondent's counsel wrote Fiore saying in part "this is to again advise
you that we are ready, willing, ,and able to bargain collectively with you or any other
authorized representative -at any place or time which is mutually convenient." As
part of the paper record which Respondent was then engaged in building, a copy of
this letter was sent to the Regional Office which, as the Trial Examiner himself did
subsequently at the hearing, immediately sought to determine the bona fides of Re-
spondent's implied recognition of the Union.
Respondent' s answer to this inquiry over the signature of its attorney proved, as
did his comments to the Trial Examiner at the hearing, that Respondent had no in-
tention of recognizing the Union.
The fact is that words were not being used in their ordinary sense as was made
clear in the very first sentence of Respondent' s explanation which stated:
The use of the term "bargain collectively" in my letter to Mr. Arnie Fiore for
the IUE signifies that I was prepared as a representative. of Business Supplies
Corporation of America to meet with Mr. Fiore for the purpose of discussing
with him any requests or propositions that he wished to make.
As the Union had already filed the charges which commenced the present hearing
and, incidently, caused the indefinite postponement of the R petition, it should have
been obvious that the Union would have no "requests or propositions" to make.
The breakdown in the meaning of words appears complete in the last paragraph
of Respondent's letter which states: -
In view of the complete lack of cooperation on the part of Mr. Fiore, and the
fact that he appears to lack good faith in.his negotiations, having walked out
on a conference and hearing called by the Board, and his failure to meet with
me, I hereby request that the charges as contained in Case No. 22-CA-1627
be dismissed.
As of the date of this 'letter the only issue outstanding was the question of recogni-
tion which, as stated at the outset, is not 'a subject matter for negotiations. Whether
intentional or not, there can be no question but that communications with Respond-
ent had completely broken down. '
Accordingly, I must find that on and after March 22, 1963, the Respondent has
refused to negotiate with the Union as the majority representative of its employees in
the above found appropriate unit in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
3. The discharge of Andrew Sisco
Andrew Sisco, a 5-year employee of Respondent in the etching department and
trained in all phases of the work of that department, was one of the leaders of the
union organizational drive. He was also ,the union shop steward in the appropriate
unit.
During the strike he was active on the picket line. When the strikers voted to
return to work unconditionally, on June 8, it was Sisco who telephoned that fact to
Ruffner and made the arrangements for them all to report back for work on June 10.
On June 10 Ruffner and Sellers interviewed each striker separately leaving the inter-
view with Sisco to the last . Respondent reinstated each striker, including three of
the four employees discharged on March 20,14 until they reached Sisco.
Sisco was told by Ruffner in his private interview on this occasion:
Andy, I don't want to argue about it, but your services are no longer wanted by
this Company.
Accordingly, Sisco was not reinstated.
14 The fourth man did not report back for work.
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the strike of April 25 was an unfair labor practice having been caused by the
discriminatory discharges and .transfers and by Respondent 's refusal to bargain, all
here found to be unfair labor practices, the strikers, :as unfair labor practice strikers,
were entitled to reinstatement upon their unconditional request therefor.15
Therefore, Sisco, as an unfair labor practice striker, was entitled to reinstatement
to his former position in the etching department in the absence of some activities by
him during the strike making him unsuitable of further employment.
At the hearing Respondent presented its star witness , William Potts , who testified
that for some weeks prior to the strike Sisco had ordered him and the other em-
ployees to slow down, to misfile, and otherwise disrupt production. Potts also testi-
fied that Sisco taught a new employee the technique of making electros back-
ward. Sisco and the other employees who were asked about these accusations denied
them.
The one part of the Potts' testimony in this regard which was subject to corrobora-
tion was his testimony that during this 3-week period prior to the strike the spoilage
of electros by Sisco was extraordinarily high , a fact Potts purported to discover
as he emptied out the waste cans, and that "the record shows" a scrap loss for that
period of 170 plates as against the usual monthly loss of 30 to 60. This scrap record
was not produced at the hearing.
Potts was not an impressive witness. I am unable to credit his testimony as against
the denials by Sisco and other employees , particularly in the absence of the corro-
borating scrap records. -
On his last afternoon of employment just prior to the taking of the strike vote,
Sisco was using a $7 metal ruler in his work . As Sisco quit work for the night
he placed this ruler into a book , closed the. book, and placed the book in the top
drawer of the table on which he had been working.
According to Potts and Respondent's officials, that ruler was not found by those
men who continued to work in the department during the strike until the end of
that strike. Sisco admitted so placing the ruler and that this was not the usual place
where the ruler was kept.
According to the testimony of Ruffner, Sellers, and Potts, this, misplacement of
the $7 metal ruler with two notches made by Respondent 's own machinists practi-
cally closed down the etching department during the period of the strike. Potts
excused his own lack of production during this . period , when criticized by Sellers,
on the fact that he could not locate this particular ruler.
The evidence showed that Respondent made no efforts to replace this ruler nor
made any inquiry of Sisco on the picket line as to its whereabouts . Under these
circumstances , I have trouble in believing that this ruler was as indispensable or as
irreplaceable as Respondent 's testimony would indicate . This is particularly so as the
evidence finally disclosed that any ruler divided into sixty-fourths could be used,
albeit not quite so conveniently.
Even assuming that Sisco deliberately hid this ruler , which is a little hard to
believe in view of the fact that he placed the ruler in the drawer before the decision
to strike was made, this is not such misconduct as would disqualify an employee from
reinstatement . I so find.
Accordingly, I must find that Respondent discharged Andrew Sisco on June 10
because of his known activities and sympathies on behalf of the Union in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States , and tend to lead and obstruct commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it " cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
15Actually the strikers were reinstated to the Jobs each had been occupying on April 24,
i.e., the Jobs to which they had been transferred. As one element of the unfair labor
practices found here , was the illegal transfer of permanent card design and etching em-
ployees to manufacturing, the employees were actually entitled to reinstatement back to
their permanent Jobs in card design and etching , rather than to manufacturing as was
done In the rase of the six transferred on March 22.
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ETC. 135
It having been found that beginning on March 22, 1963, and continuing at all
times thereafter, Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with
International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the
majority representative of the employees of Respondent's card design and etching
center appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union in good faith as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit.
It having further been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Anthony Delre, Ernest R. Hunt, William C.
Ritterson, Harry Read, and Andrew Sisco by discharging each of them on March
20, 1963, and by discriminatorily transferring David Britton, Gilbert Flora, Lloyd
Johns, Henry Jones, David Weaver, and David Wriggins on March 22, 1963, I will
recommend that Respondent reinstate each of them to his former or substantially
equivalent employment and make the first five named whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him
of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination against him to the date of his reinstatement less his
net earnings during such periods in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, in
accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716:
Because of the variety of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent,
I sense an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general, and hence
I deem it necessary to order that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discharging Anthony Delre, Ernest R. Hunt, William C. Ritterson, Harry
Read, and Andrew Sisco, and by transferring David Britton, Gilbert Flora, Lloyd
Johns, Henry Jones, David Weaver, and David Wriggins on March 22, 1963, thereby
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, and discouraging
union activities among its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. All card design and etching employees, including draftsman, clerk, photo-
grapher, proofreader, plater, and photoengraver of Respondent employed at its
Monmouth Junction plant, but excluding all office clerical employees, all other
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times since March 15, 1963, International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, has been and now ,is the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing on, and at all times since, March 22, 1963, to bargain
collectively with International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit, the Respondent has engaged in nand is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. 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 basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Business Supplies
Corporation of America, Data Processing Supplies Division, Monmouth Junction,
New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership or activities in International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, by discriminatorily discharging or trans-
ferrine any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire and tenure of emplovment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment, with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of all their employees in the following
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate unit; all card design and etching employees, including draftsman, clerk,
photographer , proofreader, plater? and photoengraver of Respondent employed at
its Monmouth Junction plant, but excluding all office clerical employees , profes-
sional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining . or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other , concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such right might be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Reinstate to their former or substantially equivalent employment Anthony
Delre , Ernest R. Hunt , William C. Ritterson , Harry Read , Andrew Sisco, David
Britton, Gilbert Flora, Lloyd Johns, Henry Jones, David Weaver , and David Wrig-
gins and make the first five named employees whole for any loss of earnings each
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request , bargain collectively with International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the above -described appropriate unit with respect to rates to pay , wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment , and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agent, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports , and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Monmouth Junction , New Jersey, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." 16 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Twenty-second Region, shall , upon being duly signed by
Respondent's representative , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other materials.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region , in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps have been taken to
comply with the foregoing Recommended Order.17
I further recommend that, unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt of
this Decision , Respondent has notified the Regional Director that it will comply with
the foregoing Recommended Order, the Board issue an Order requiring the Respond-
ent to take the aforesaid action.
16 In 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 "
17In 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 A
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership or activities in International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza-
tion, by discriminatorily discharging, transferring, or refusing to reinstate any
of our employees or by -discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or aany term or condition of employment.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 313 137
WE WILL reinstate to their former or substantially equivalent position the fol-
lowing named employees and will make the last five named whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against
him:
David Britton David Weaver William C. Ritterson
Gilbert Flora David Wriggins Harry Read
Lloyd Johns Anthony Delre Andrew Sisco
Henry Jones Ernest R. Hunt
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, asthe exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit described below with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment, .and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached:
All card design and etching employees, including draftsman, clerk pho-
tographer, proofreader, plater, and photoengraver of Respondent employed
at its Monmouth Junction plant, but excluding all office clerical employees,
all other employees , professional employees, guards , and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bar
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement declaring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in the above-named or in any other labor organization.
BUSINESS SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 Na-
tional Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, Telephone No.
Market 4-6151, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 313,
AFL-CIO and James Julian, Inc.
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 626 and James Julian , Inc. Cases Nos. 4-CC-273 and
4-CC-285. May 25, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 14, 1964, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Local 313,
one of the Respondents, had engaged in and was engaging in certain
147 NLRB No. 18.