Charles Perrella Ring Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 26 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charles Perrella and Gerald Katz , Co-Partners d/b/a/
Charles Perrella Ring Company and Amalgamated
Jewelry, Diamond and Watchcase Workers Union,
Local No 1, International Jewelry Workers Union,
AFL-CIO. Cases 2-CA-12970 and 2-RC-16077
August 26, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On January 23, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions to portions of the Decision, a statement sup-
porting its exceptions, and a brief supporting other
portions of the Decision; and the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
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, the state-
ment, and the briefs and has decided to affirm the
rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administra-
tive Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order
as modified herein.'
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
the Respondent's preelection unfair labor practices,
which included numerous instances of interrogation
and threats, the granting of wage and insurance bene-
fit increases, the discharge of Rodriguez, and the lay-
off of Rivera, had a serious effect on the employees
and dissipated the majority status which the Union
had enjoyed at the time of its demand for recognition,
and we therefore adopt his recommended bargaining
order. For reasons set forth in Steel-Fab, Inc., 212
NLRB No. 25 (1974), we reject his finding of an
8(a)(5) violation, and in lieu thereof we find, in accord
with Steel-Fab, that the Respondent's violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act alone constitute the
basis for the remedial order? We further correct the
Administrative Law Judge's inadvertent failure to or-
der the Respondent to cease and desist from granting
insurance benefits to reward employees opposed to
the Union or to undermine union support.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified,
and hereby orders that Repondent, Charles Perrella
and Gerald Katz, Co-Partners, d/b/a Charles Perrella
Ring Company, New York, New York, its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified
below:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b):
"(b) Granting and withholding wage increases and
granting insurance benefits to reward employees op-
posed to the Union or to undermine union support."
2. Eliminate paragraph 1(e).
3. Substitute.the following as paragraph 2(c):
"(c) Upon request, recognize and bargain with
Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond and Watchcase
Workers Union, Local No. 1, International Jewelry
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in a
unit of all production employees, including jewelers,
polishers, lappers, washout room employees, and set-
ters of Respondent, employed at its New York place
of business, exclusive of all other employees, includ-
ing non-manufacturing inspectors, office clerical em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, respecting rates of
pay, wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement."
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
' Chairman Miller dissents from the finding that Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)( I) by the statement "... if there was sufficient union interference with
my operation , the profits wouldn' t be there-by that, I meant the profits to
share in terms of salary increases and Christmas bonuses ." The Chairman
does not regard this statement as a threat of retaliatory action , but rather as
a mere qualified prediction that certain types of union action could adversely
affect profits and that as a result there could be less profits to share with
employees.
Members Jenkins and Kennedy agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that the statement must be considered in the context of all the circumstances
and they affirm his conclusion that when so considered it represented a "not
too subtle hint" that if the employees voted for the Union that their Christ-
mas bonuses and wage raises would be in jeopardy.
2 For the reasons set forth in his concurring and dissenting opinion in
Steel-Fab, Inc., supra, Member Jenkins would find a violation of Sec . 8(ax5),
as did the Administrative Law Judge. Chairman Miller concurs in the is-
suance of the bargaining order on Steel-Fab grounds, but would particularly
emphasize the lingering effects of wage increases already received by employ-
ees and of the discriminatory terminations of employment which were here
resorted to in order to discourage unionization . See his separate opinion in
General Stencils, Inc., 195 NLRB 1109 (1972). In the Chairman's view , no fair
election could be held at this facility in the foreseeable future , and the only
effective remedy is the one here applied-an order to bargain.
213 NLRB No. 1
CHARLES PERRELLA RING CO.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all parties had the opportunity
to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act and has ordered us to post this notice and
abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees
with respect to their union activities and desires.
WE WILL NOT grant and withhold wage increas-
es or grant insurance benefits to reward employ-
ees opposed to the Union or to undermine union
support.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of
Christmas bonuses if the Union organizes the
shop.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amal-
gamated Jewelry, Diamond and Watchcase
Workers Union, Local No. 1, International Jew-
elry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other la-
bor organization, by discriminating against our
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any other term or condition of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Edgardo Rivera and Jose Ro-
driguez immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs, or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and WE WILL make Rivera and Rodriguez
whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by
reason of their discriminatory terminations.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the aforesaid Union respecting rates of pay,
wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment as the exclusive representative of
our employees in the following bargaining unit:
All production employees, including jewelers,
polishers , lappers , washout room employees
and setters of Respondent , employed at its
New York place of business , exclusive of all
other employees , including non-manufactur-
ing inspectors, office clerical employees,
guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as de-
fined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
27
Charles Perrella and Ger-
ald Katz, Co-Partners
d/b/a/ Charles Perrella
Ring Company
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
'Board's Office, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Fed-
eral Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Telephone
212-264-0300.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER. Administrative Law Judge: On May 4,
1973,' the Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond and Watchcase
Workers Union Local No. 1, International Jewelry Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a charge
alleging that violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5)
had been committed by Charles Perrella and Gerald Katz,
Co-partners d/b/a/ Charles Perrella Ring Company, herein
called Respondent or the Company.
On March 12 the Union filed a petition in Case 2-RC-
16077 seeking an election and following a hearing held on
March 27, and a Decision and Direction of Election on
April 4, an election of Respondent's employees was held
on May I in a unit of "all production employees, including
jewelers, polishers, lappers, washout room employees and
setters, but excluding all other employees, including non-
manufacturing inspectors, office clerical employees,
guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act "
Of the approximate 20 eligible voters, 5 cast ballots for the
Union and 13 against. The Union filed timely objections to
the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the
results of the election.
On July 26 the Regional Director of Region 2 issued a
complaint and notice of hearing in which it was alleged that
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discharging Jose Rodriguez on March 28, and by laying
off Edgardo Rivera on March 20, and 8(a)(1) by making
promises and granting wage increases, increasing insurance
benefits, threatening a reduction in benefits and by these
various acts and by refusing to recognize and bargain with
the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
On the same date the Regional Director issued an order
1 Unless otherwise stated all events herein took place during 1973.
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consolidating cases and a notice of hearing in which after
detailing the objections to the election filed by the Union,
stated that a number of said objections referred to the same
issues raised in the complaint and accordingly consolidated
the cases.
Respondent in its July 31 answer admitted the commerce
and jurisdictional allegations, the status of the Union, that
Perrella and Katz were the copartners and agents of Re-
spondent and that the unit set forth above constituted a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within
the meaning of the Act. Respondent also admitted its layoff
of Edgardo Rivera on March 20 and its discharge of Jose
Rodriguez on March 28. The operative facts and dates con-
cerning the filing and processing of Case 2-RC-16077 were
also admitted. Respondent denied the other allegations of
the complaint and in particular that it had in any way
violated the Act.
As to Union's Objection 4, which alleged that Respon-
dent had held a meeting of its employees within 24 hours of
the election , the evidence demonstrated and Respondent
admitted that it had held such a meeting within the 24 hour
period. With this violation of the Board's 24 hour rule and
on the basis of other findings made herein, I will recom-
mend that the election held on May I be set aside.
A number of the facts in this case are not controverted
but there are two or three areas in which there is a flat
contradiction between the parties. There are other facts
which can assist in the resolution of these questions, howev-
er it is not necessary to make credibility findings in order
to resolve certain issues in this case. If it were necessary the
scales would tilt against the testimony given by Charles
Perrella.
I have concluded that Respondent violated Section
8(axl); (3), and (5) of the Act, but will dismiss those allega-
tions concerning the coffee practice and the 8(a)(3) and (1)
allegation concerning payment for lost merchandise. As to
the other allegations I will recommend that Rivera and
Rodriguez be reinstated and reimbursed and Respondent
be ordered to bargain with the Union and an appropriate
notice posted.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and cross-examine witness, and to argue orally.
General Counsel and Respondent have filed briefs which
have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my evalua-
tion of the reliability of the witnesses based on the evidence
received and my observation of their demeanor, and on the
fact that some portions of the evidence were not denied or
explained, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZA-
TION INVOLVED
Respondent is a copartnership of Charles Perrella and
Gerald Katz located in New York City where it is engaged
under the trade name of Charles Perrella Ring Company in
the manufacture, assembly, sale and distribution of ring
mountings for the jewelry industry. During the past year
Respondent manufactured, assembled, sold and distributed
products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped in
interstate commerce directly to States other than the State
of New York.
Respondent is and has been at all times material herein
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
Respondent is located on 47th Street in Manhattan a few
blocks from the Union office. Around January 1, some
inquiry was made of the Union by Respondent employees
concerning unionization. Nothing further was heard until
around March 1, when Jose Rodriguez and Raimundo Bon-
illa went to the Union office where they talked with Louis
Herman, the Union's financial secretary-treasurer of the
Union. He talked to them about getting a majority of em-
ployees committed to the union before seeking recognition
and gave them union authorization cards 2 to distribute to
fellow employees.
Between March 1 and March 9 Bonilla and Rodriguez
gave these union authorization cards to most of
Respondent's employees. A union meeting was held during
that period and by March 9 the cards were signed on both
sides by some 17 employees. One of the cardsigners was an
inspector, who following the unit decision in the Decision
and Direction of Election noted above, was specifically ex-
cluded from the bargaining unit. The Union estimated when
it filed the petition, that some 24 employees were in the
appropriate unit. When the employer prepared a list of the
employees pursuant to the Excelisor doctrine it included 23
names , one of whom was the inspector referred to above.
Thus, there were 22 employees, according to Respondent
and the Union, who were in the unit at the time of the
election of which number 16 had signed union authorization
cards on or before March 9.
Respondent did not question the genuiness of any of
these cards.
On March 9, Union financial secretary-treasurer, Her-
man, who had the 17 cards in his possession, went to the
Respondent's shop about noon and conferred with the co-
partners Charles Perrella and Gerald Katz. He testified and
2 The authorization card has wording on both sides in English and Spanish.
On one side it gives the Union 's name and in bold print states Application
for Membership and then has spaces for the name and address of the individ-
ual, his company's name, his occupation, when he was hired , his wages and
social security number and date of birth . There is also space for initiation fee,
reinstatement fee, etc., and a space entitled "Signature of Applicant." On the
reverse side under the Union 's name are two paragraphs in English and in
Spanish which authorize and designate the Union to negotiate and conclude
agreements as to hours, wages, and working conditions for the signatory who
agrees he will not enter into individual or private agreements to do subcon-
tracting or homework . The second paragraph states that the application for
membership if accepted the individual agrees to abide by the constitution
and bylaw of the Union. There is a space at the bottom for a signature
entitled applicant and for the date . The intent and purpose of these authori-
zation cards is clear and capable of no ambiguity.
CHARLES PERRELLA RING CO. 29
Katz agreed that he told them the Union represented a
substantial majority of their employees and produced the
bundle of cards from his pocket. When they indicated they
would like to see them, he said he would not show them the
cards but that there were procedures they could go through
if they doubted him; that they could have an informal elec-
tion in the shop or he could file a petition with the NLRB
for a formal election. Herman testified that because of the
possibility of reprisals he never permits a company to view
the authorization cards unless everyone in the shop has
signed a card. Katz said that if the men really wanted an
election they wouldn't have to go to the NLRB that they
could have an informal election in the shop. They then
talked about the Union contract and Herman said he did
not have a copy with him but would go back to the Union
office and bring a copy back later that afternoon. Herman
left and returned about 3:30 p.m. with a copy of the 1972
contract and of the Union's hospitalization program. He
told Katz and Perrella the changes which had been made in
the 1972 contract, in the negotiations recently concluded by
the Union with a number of the people in the industry. Katz
and Perrella said they would like an opportunity to study it
and would get back to him on Monday. Herman told Katz
that he would be filing for an election with the NLRB and
that if the Company decided they wanted an informal elec-
tion it would be no problem for him to call the NLRB and
cancel any election the Board would set up. Herman testi-
fied that when he returned to the office he filled out a
petition form, had the union authorization cards alphabe-
tized and the names placed on a sheet of paper and sent the
required documents to the NLRB by registered mail. NLRB
Region 2 received the petition and the cards and time
stamped them on Monday morning March 12.
Foreman Robert Seegull testified that in February prior
to the Union demand he told each of the employees after
being told to do so by Katz and Perrella that they were
going to receive a $10 raise. He stated that his first knowl-
edge of the union organization occurred on Friday, March
9 when Louis Herman came to the shop. He testified that
after lunch he spoke to the men and asked who wanted a
union and who didn't and got enough concrete answers to
show that the men had signed the union cards. According
to Seegull, Perrella, Katz and he were dumbfounded that so
many employees wanted a union when they had thought
they had a happy shop. Seegull admitted telling some of the
employees that with the Union they might get a salary in-
crease but would lose most of it since union shops only
worked 35 hours a week. He also testified that he spoke to
the employees after Katz and Perrella told him to tell the
employees that the wage raise he had mentioned to them in
February was now rescinded. He said that Katz and Perrella
said that business was not too good and that it was because
of the Union. He admitted he might have stated this to the
employees too. Seegull admitted that he spoke individually
to all the employees because he wanted to make sure who
had signed and who had not since he had not seen them sign
the cards. In each instance he asked if they had signed union
cards. He gave the results of his conversations to Gerald
Katz but felt this was the following week and not on Friday,
March 9. Seegull remembered the names of the six who had
not signed union cards and those six he recommended for
a raise which they received about a week later.
A meeting of all the shop employees was held around 4
p.m. on Friday, March 9 by Seegull. There had been talk of
an informal election but the Company decided not to hold
one on Friday. On Monday, March 12, by which time See-
gull was sure he had conducted his poll told Katz that 16
of the 22 employees had signed union cards, Katz said they
would not have an informal election, but would let the
NLRB take care of it.
It is also undisputed that some 11 days prior to the date
of the Union election on May 1, the Company granted
raises to all of its employees including the six who had
previously received raises.
Mr. Katz testified that on the afternoon of Friday, March
9 when Herman returned to them with the contracts, there
was a discussion in regard to wage increases . Katz testified
that he told Herman that a wage increase had already been
granted but had not gone into effect yet because they were
in a period when business was kind of slow and they
couldn't push things too fast.
B. Majority Status
Respondent raises no question as to the genuiness or
authenticity of the union authorization cards, but argues
that the authorization cards were used only for the purpose
of obtaining an election and not as true authorization cards,
and as such they cannot serve as the basis of establishing a
majority for the Union. Respondent's brief states that no
demand for recognition was made, apparently not believing
that the conversations between Louis Herman, Katz, and
Perrella on March 9 amounted to a demand. It is clear from
Herman's testimony, as corroborated by Katz, that he
claimed to represent a majority of the employees, requested
recognition by Respondent , and wanted to engage in nego-
tiations , offering to prove his majority not by showing Re-
spondent the cards but through the process of an election,
either informal or Board conducted.
Respondent bases its position on the fact that the cards
were not offered to Respondent for its inspection of proof
of majority and on Herman's offering to go to an informal
or Board election. Respondent obtained some testimony
that its employees were told by Herman that the Union
became recognized by companies usually through an elec-
tion. Herman testified that he never showed authorization
cards to a company unless he had everyone in the shop
signed up since he feared some companies might indulge in
reprisals. Another precept of his organizing was that Her-
man did not file a Board petition unless he had about 75
percent of the unit signed up since with the advent of a
company campaign there might be some attrition, but with
75 percent signed, enough usually remained committed to
the Union to win an election.
Respondent's position that there was no demand must
fall in view of the clear testimony of Herman that he told
Katz and Perrella that he had a substantial majority of their
employees signed up and wanted Respondent to recognize
the Union and bargain. Katz's testimony confirms that Her-
man claimed to have a majority and that Herman brought
them some union contracts. Seegull's testimony (which I
credit) that he determined by questioning the employees
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that a majority had signed union authorization cards, and
so informed Katz is contradicted by Katz who says that
Seegull told him that only a small number of employees
were definitely for the Union.
Respondent argues that since the employees were told
that recognition would be sought through an election, that
changed the purpose of the cards and that they are not proof
of a union majority, but only that employees wanted an
election.
However, there is no credible testimony that employees
were told that the cards were to be signed to get an election
or that they did not understand the language of the cards.
The union authorization cards, as shown above, are clear
and unambiguous. The question of how to obtain recogni-
tion is a matter of tactics and Herman telling the employees
how he would seek recognition does not vitiate the bona
fides of the authorization cards.
Indeed, the discrimination that Herman sought to pre-
vent, occurred nevertheless in this case because Respondent
having unlawfully interrogated the employees as to their
card signing punished the cardsigners by withholding wages
and rewarded the others with raises.
Accordingly, I find that a demand for recognition was
made, and refused by Respondent on March 9 and the
demand was supported by a majority of the employees then
currently in the appropriate unit. I find that 16 of the em-
ployees had authorized the Union to act as their collective-
bargaining representative out of a unit of 22 employees who
were listed on Respondent 's Excelisor listing of eligible unit
employees.
Respondent contended that the unit should be enlarged
by employee Leah Bernat. In support of its position, Katz
testified that Bernat is directly responsible to Foreman See-
gull and his assistant , Cemilli, punches a timeclock and
performs part of the work in the shop. According to Katz
her job is to receive merchandise at a station located in one
comer of the office , she then opens and examines it, enters
it into a book, places the merchandise in proper order for
processing with any instructions that came with it, takes it
back into the factory section and there uses the scale to see
if the weight is correct. She then turns it over to the foreman
and performs no work on the merchandise itself. After work
has been performed the merchandise is given to her for
shipping.
Respondent contends that as the first and last person in
the production process, she should be included in the unit.
Under the terms of the unit as set forth in the Decision
and Direction of Election, Bernat should be excluded from
the unit. In the unit description production employees in-
cluding jewelers, polishers, lathers, washout room employ-
ees and setters form the unit and all other employees
including nonmanufacturing inspectors , office clerical em-
ployees , guards, watchmen and supervisors are excluded.
The language is clear that the unit is meant to embrace only
the people who actually do production work on the mer-
chandise itself . For instance, the nonmanufacturing inspec-
tors, the people who would be inspecting the merchandise
as it was being processed are specifically excluded and their
jobs would be more closely aligned to the production pro-
cess than would Bernat's job . Bernat's position is excluded
under the term all other employees if she is not considered
as an office clerical.
In summary as of March 9, the date of the Union's de-
mand and the refusal by Respondent to recognize the
Union there were 22 employees in the appropriate unit of
whom 16 had signed unambiguous authorization cards de-
signating the Union as their collective -bargaining agent.
Therefore the Union represented a majority of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit on March
9 and thereafter.
C. Raises and Insurance
In regard to the raises, the Company maintains that it did
not violate the Act after the Union's demand by withhold-
ing raises at one time and granting raises later . Respondent
while admitting that Robert Seegull is a foreman, denies
that he is an agent of Respondent. Seegull is Respondent's
only foreman and according to Katz has an assistant, Cer-
nilli. There are occasions such as March 27, when according
to Seegull he was the only supervisor at the plant. The Board
has held innumerable times that a foreman is an agent of
his employer and I so hold here. There is no disavowal by
Respondent of any acts or words of Seegull and Respondent
must be held accountable for his deeds.
In regard to the raises, Seegull testified that in February
following the directions of Katz and Perrella he told each
of the employees that they would get a $10 raise. On Friday,
March 9, following the visits of Union Representative Her-
man, he was directed by Katz and Perrella to tell the men
that these raises were being rescinded because of the Union
and because business was not too good right then. As stated
above, Seegull so informed the employees. On the following
Tuesday, March 13, raises were given to the six employees
who had not signed union cards (Leah Bernat was given a
raise of 14 cents an hour on March 13 but was not given the
raise on April 17 with the rest of the employees). On April
17 raises of $10 to $20 were given to all the employees
including the six who had previously received raises on
March 13.
Respondent claimed it gave the first raises to the employ-
ees who were the most highly skilled, and therefore most in
demand, and who were most crucial to the employer's suc-
cess. The raises were given to model makers, setters, and a
jeweler, but there were three other jewelers employed at the
same time who were not given raises and who were being
paid as much or more than Longobardi the jeweler who was
given the raise on March 13. Moreover the odds would
appear to be astronomical that the employer could pick 6
out of 22 people to receive raises as most deserving, and the
6 having been the identical ones who did not sign union
authorization cards. Foreman Seegull testified specifically
that he knew who had not signed union cards, and it was
he who recommended the raises which were granted to
those employees. These raises coming 2 working days after
all the employees were told the raises were not being given
because of the Union, clearly demonstrates the purpose of
the raises.
This Respondent explanation conflicts with its other ex-
planations. Respondent claims that it rescinded the raises
on March 9 because business was slow and 2 workdays later
gives out raises to 6 employees would have increased its
CHARLES PERRELLA RING CO. 31
expenses by $60 per week. A week after that it laid off
Edgardo Rivera because it claimed business was slow and
way down but yet a few weeks later it granted $10 to $20
raises to all its employees shortly before the union election.
The only logical explanation of the convoluted course of
raises is that Respondent first sought to punish its employ-
ees by telling them it would not grant any raises because of
their newfound allegiance to the Union, then rewarded the
six employees who had not signed union authorization
cards. Finally, it decided that money might work best before
the election and granted raises to all the employees. This
course of action is in keeping with a leaflet, which Respon-
dent put out to its employees prior to the election, in which
it stated "The Company guarantees each and every employ-
er higher wages than those provided for under the union
wage schedule." Respondent, as Katz admitted, did not
have any consistent pattern in granting blanket or individu-
al wage raises, and here certainly the only pattern discern-
ible is improper and unlawful.
Respondent's explanation of its actions is inconsistent
and not borne out by the facts. The Supreme Court noted
in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405
(1964), the "danger inherent in well timed increases and
benefits is the suggestion of the fist inside the velvet glove.
Employees are not likely to miss the inference that the
source of benefits now conferred was also the source from
which future benefits must flow and which may dry up if it
is not obliged." In this case the fist was outside the glove and
its presence was rather apparent to all.
An insurance broker, Murray M. Keys, testified that he
had Respondent as a customer for some 10 or 11 years and
had a small hospitalization program and a life insurance
policy covering Respondent's employees. Both he and Katz
testified they had discussed changing the policies and up-
grading the hospitalization for sometime prior to March
1973. Katz testified that a number of the employees, whose
wives had Blue Cross health insurance, or who had individ-
ual policies themselves, had showed the policies and had
told him that it was better than the policy Respondent had.
Keys testified that Katz had told him that he thought the
employees would prefer Blue Cross and asked him to see if
he could come up with something that would match Blue
Cross or be better. He testified that he was unable to do so
and finally in March at a meeting Katz and Perrella told
him to go ahead with the Blue Cross-Blue Shield and ar-
range to bring it in. Keys stated that at that time he persuad-
ed the Company to raise the life insurance policy so he
wouldn't lose out completely on his commissions. (I should
note that this occurred after the union demand and after
Respondent had received a copy of the Union's hospitaliza-
tion plan.) After completion of this arrangement, Keys en-
tered the factory and spoke to each of the men individually
telling them that a Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan was going
to be put into effect and that their life insurance was going
to be increased.
Raimundo Bonilla testified that around March 23 an in-
surance agent came into the plant and spoke to the employ-
ees individually telling them that they would be getting
better insurance and that the Blue Shield-Blue Cross plan
would be put in. Bonilla further testified that I or 2 days
before the election the same man came back into the plant
and told the employees individually that the insurance Mr.
Katz was going to give them was far better coverage than
that offered by the Union. Keys did not recall speaking to
the employees more than one time, however Gerald Katz
testified that Keys was a man who was impossible to keep
out of the shop and referring to the first occasion, Keys went
right into the shop as he always did.
I credit Bonilla that insurance agent Keys spoke to the
shop employees individually on at least two occasions, on
the first announcing that Respondent was going to put in
better insurance and the Blue Cross-Blue Shield program
and on a second occasion, just prior to the election, telling
the employees that the insurance to be provided for them
by Respondent was better than they could get from the
Union.
Respondent defends its action in putting in the insurance
program at this particular time on the basis that the decision
to put this program into effect was merely the culmination
of discussions over a period of months as to what should be
done regarding Respondent's insurance program for its em-
ployees. Respondent in effect states that it had a plan to
upgrade the employees' insurance prior to the advent of the
Union and the fact that it finally directed the insurance
broker to do it at this particular time is only the termination
of a preconceived plan. Respondent does not claim that its
employees knew it was attempting to upgrade their insur-
ance coverage prior to the advent of the Union.
Again we have a question of timing. Respondent presum-
ably could have made this decision at any time up until the
time it finally did so. Here the decision was made to give a
benefit to the employees some 2 weeks after the Union
demand. There is no pattern to the conversations or negoti-
ations that preceded this decision and no compelling reason
why the decision and announcment were made right then
except for the obvious reason of influencing the employees
concerning the Union. This is a repeat of the wage raise
tactics and it is further emphasized by Keys later telling the
employees that Respondent's insurance program was better
than what the Union could give them.
The granting of these benefits and the announcement to
the employees was clearly authorized by the Respondent in
permitting Keys to do so, and is I find, a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act in that it is a grant of benefits to the
employees with the obvious intent and purpose to persuade
them that their future lays best with Respondent rather than
with the Union.
D. The Layoff of Edgardo Rivera
Edgardo Rivera is the son-in-law of Jose Rodriguez, one
of the two principal union proponents in this case. Rivera
started to work for Respondent in September 1969 and
worked as a delivery boy until the fall of 1972, when Re-
spondent promoted him to the washout room where he
plated and washed rings. From an initial salary of $70 per
week he had received raises to $110 per week when he was
laid off March,;0. He signed a union authorization card for
Bonilla at the beginning of the organizational campaign.
On Friday, March 9 after union agent Herman's visit,
Foreman Seegull asked if he knew about the Union and he
replied yes. Later that day Seegull came back and asked if
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he had signed a union card and he replied that he had. That
evening just before they were leaving work Seegull told all
the employees that if they wanted a union they could have
it, but that they would lose money because the Union only
allowed them to work 35 hours a week and the raise that he
had spoken to them about in February was not going to be
given.
On March 20 Foreman Seegull told him he was being laid
off because he didn 't have any work for him . Rivera asked
when he would be called back and Seegull replied he didn't
know, that their work was a little slow. Rivera testified that
work had been slow at other times but this is the first time
he had ever been laid off . On other occasions when work
was slow Rivera was either used as a utility boy or filed
rings . It is uncontradicted that a delivery boy who was hired
after him remained in the Company's employ after Rivera's
layoff . Rivera was the only employee laid off although Re-
spondent claimed that some jewelers who left were not re-
placed.
Foreman Seegull said that he had promoted Rivera from
delivery boy to the washout room and had given him a raise
and Rivera 's work was satisfactory . Although first testifying
that the decision to layoff Rivera was a mutual one between
Katz and himself, Seegull later testified that Katz and Per-
rella made that decision and allowed him no discretion.
Neither Katz nor Perrella said anything about Rivera's
work or efficiency but merely told him to layoff Rivera
because things had slowed up a bit and they wanted to
tighten up everything.
Respondent thereafter moved Rodriguez to the washout
room to perform Rivera's work but continued to pay him
the higher rate of his other job. When the delivery boy left,
Respondent hired seriatim two more delivery boys but never
contacted Rivera . Seegull helped Rivera to get a job at
another company . Rivera admitted that Seegull had men-
tioned his absentee record in February but nothing in that
regard was mentioned when he was laid off.
Respondent asserts that Rivera's skill level was low, that
he did menial work and was a logical choice for layoff
because of the depressed business conditions which had
been brought about by the high price of gold . Respondent's
brief after mentioning these things notes that Rivera was
easy to replace.
General Counsel maintains that Rivera 's layoff violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act because it had the intent
and purpose of discouraging union membership . This con-
clusion is predicated on Rivera 'a known union adherence,
his relationship to Rodriguez, one of the two union propo-
nents, that a delivery boy with less seniority was retained
and that Respondent hired at least two delivery boy replace-
ments who would have had less skill and been paid less than
Rivera and some four other employees who were paid more
than Rivera's rate , but never sought to recall Rivera. Fur-
ther, Respondent granted the raises referred to above. Gen-
eral Counsel concludes that Rivera 's layoff could not have
been for the asserted economic reasons in the light of these
facts, but was designed to rid itself of a union supporter it
could afford to lose and serve as a warning to other employ-
ees.
I must agree with the General Counsel . If Rivera had
been laid off solely for economic reasons, he would have
been recalled rather than new inexperienced help being
hired . That is the nature of a layoff . Respondent while
calling this a layoff , defends it as a discharge by mentioning
Rivera's absentee record and the ease of replacement, while
ignoring the fact that the immediate supervisor , Seegull, was
not consulted in this selection . Respondent claims it had no
animus towards Rivera and that Seegull 's helping Rivera get
another job demonstrates that . However, Seegull's lack of
personal animus in helping Rivera would indicate that he
felt Rivera was a good worker and shows only Seegull's state
of mind, not that of Katz or Perrella. It was Katz and
Perrella who determined to layoff Rivera , not Seegull.
Respondent's animus towards the Union is amply demon-
strated by the violations found above and which follow.
I therefore conclude and find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by laying off Edgardo
Rivera on March 20 , 1973, and not thereafter recalling him.
E. The Discharge of Jose Rodriguez
Jose Rodriguez worked for Respondent approximately 14
years until his discharge on March 28. During the first part
of his employment Rodriguez had problems with asthma
and was off for long periods of time. Throughout his em-
ployment with Respondent he did not work a consistent 40
hour workweek. Respondent's records show that other em-
ployees similarly did not work full workweeks.
In January, Foreman Seegull after talking to Katz told
Rodriguez he would be laid off because of his poor work
record. Rodriguez talked to Katz and Perrella and they
decided to retain him with Rodriguez apparently promising
to do better. His work record did not improve greatly but
it was better than some of the other employees. On March
27 while at work around 11:30 a.m. he received a message
to come to the office for a telephone call. Rodriguez testified
that when he got to the office Union Agent Herman was on
the phone and told him to come down to the NLRB hearing
that he needed him, and to ask permission of his boss or
foreman to leave. Herman gave him directions and the ad-
dress which Rodriguez wrote on a piece of paper since he
had never been to the NLRB office. Rodriguez testified that
he showed the piece of paper to Seegull and told him they
needed him at the hearing. Seegull told him to ask permis-
sion of Perrella. Rodriguez testified that he told Perrella that
they needed him at the hearing, showed him the piece of
paper and that Perrella said okay Jose and he left after
punching out. Rodriguez got lost and didn't find his way to
the hearing and returned to the plant about 2:00 or 2:30
p.m. and punched in. He worked the rest of that day and
all day March 28. Around 4:20 p.m. Seegull came into the
washroom and said he had bad news for him, that Mr. Katz
doesn't want him any more. He asked why and Seegull said
it was because of the union meeting. When he left Rodri-
guez went by the union office and reported this to Mr.
Herman.
Respondent claims that Rodriguez could not have gotten
permission from Perrella on March 27 since Perrella was out
sick that day. Respondent offered testimony from Seegull,
Gerald Katz, his son and a Respondent employee J. How-
ard Katz and Perrella that Perrella did not go to the shop
that entire day due to illness. Howard Katz testified that he
CHARLES PERRELLA RING CO. 33
received a telephone call for Rodriguez and called Foreman
Seegull to the phone . Seegull testified that after answering
the phone he sent for Rodriguez but did not hear the conver-
sation between Rodriguez and the caller . After the tele-
phone conversation Rodriguez told him that it was the
Union and that they wanted him to come down to the
meeting, that they needed him . Seegull recalled nothing
further being said and that Rodriguez punched his timecard
and left . Seegull admitted that he didn't stop Rodriguez or
tell him he could not go , nor did he say anything about
Rodriguez being fired if he left. He testified it is not general
practice for employees to say they are going somewhere and
just leave . Seegull said that he was in charge of the shop at
that point, since Katz was at the hearing , and according to
him Perrella was off sick . He admitted that he knew where
Rodirguez was going.
Seegull testified that he told Katz that Rodriguez had
taken time off to go down to the Union after the Union had
called him. He said that Katz did not say anything at that
time but that Katz and Perrella apparently talked it over
and later Katz told him to let Rodriguez go, but did not tell
him what to say to Rodriguez . He testified he knew the
reason for the discharge was that Rodriguez had taken off
the previous day. Later Seegull testified that the discharge
could have been for other things such as Rodriguez ' absen-
teeism record etc., but said that this was the first time any-
body had ever been fired at Respondent and that all the
other employees who were no longer there had been laid off
or had quit . When Seegull first discussed Rodriguez' March
27 absence with Katz, Katz told him it was an unauthorized
absence and that Rodriguez should not have left without
permission . Seegull testified that he told Rodriguez he was
being discharged under the direct orders of Katz and Perrel-
Ia.
As to his supervisory authority on March 27, and at other
times since Perrella was not there , he was in direct charge
of the shop , ran the shop and the office and had authority
to discipline people , and authority to recommend discharge.
He also testified that he passed on the ability of prospective
employees and reported directly to Katz and Perrella. Re-
spondent also disclosed that Seegull had an assistant fore-
man named Cernilli.
Union Agent Herman testified that on March 27 he was
at the NLRB hearing and called the plant and asked Rodri-
guez to come down . He told Rodriguez to ask his foreman
or employer for permission to come and get there as soon
as he could. He gave Rodriguez the address and directions
over the phone and Rodriguez had him wait while he got
paper and pencil and wrote the address and directions. On
the following day Rodriguez came by Herman's office and
told him that Seegull had fired him stating it was because
he had gone to the hearing the day before . He told Herman
he had gotten lost and then went back to the plant and
worked the rest of that day and all day March 28th . Herman
testified that he then called Katz , and said that what Katz
did was not proper and that he would be forced to file an
objection and unfair labor practices if they did not put
Rodriguez back to work . Katz said he had fired Rodriguez
because Rodriguez had not put in a full week in 8 months.
Herman said he understood Rodriguez had worked there
for 14 years and his attendance record was no better or
worse during that entire period , and that Seegull had told
Rodriguez he was being discharged because he had come to
the hearing and not because of any absentee problems. Katz
said that Rodriguez had not gotten permission to leave and
asked why Herman had not asked him at the hearing to
have Rodriguez come down . Herman said he just had not
done it. Katz said Rodriguez had not gotten permission
from Perrella to leave the plant and go to the hearing and
then put Perrella on the phone . Herman testified that Perrel-
la said Rodriguez came to him and said something he didn't
quite understand , showed him a piece of paper , which Per-
rella did not look at , and left , but that he had not given
Rodriguez permission to leave the plant , nor had he told
him he couldn' t leave.
Asked specifically why Rodriguez was let go, Perrella said
it was because Rodriguez left the shop without permission
and without notifying Katz or himself on March 27. On
cross-examination Perrella was asked whether he had talked
to Union Agent Herman on March 28 and testified that the
only time he spoke to Herman was when he came to the
plant, and he did not recall speaking to Herman but let
Katz do all the talking in regard to the discharge of Rodri-
guez and did not speak to Herman on the phone. To a
question of whether Katz would say he was putting Perrel-
Ia on the phone and not do so, Perella said no but that
sometimes people at the plant imitated his voice.
Gerald Katz testified that after returning to the plant and
learning that Rodriguez had left work , he reviewed Rodri-
guez' records, recalled that he had been let go in January
and then kept and decided that Rodriguez should be dis-
charged . Katz said Seegull told him that Herman had called
Rodriguez to come to the hearing but that he did not believe
it at first . The testimony as to when Katz and Perrella talked
about discharging Rodriguez is confused since Katz at one
point said it was March 27 and at another point said it was
the 28th. Asked whether Foreman Seegull was authorized to
give permission for an employee to leave the plant Katz
replied "not specifically, no." Asked who Rodriguez was
supposed to contact for permission since Katz was not
there and according to his testimony Perella was at home,
Katz replied:
A. He knew about this a long time ago . Why didn't
he ask me? He should have asked me for permission.
This is what we told him previously . If you want to do
something , ask us. If you want to be absent, give us the
reason in advance . We told him this many times. He
knows this.
Q. But he didn 't get the phone call until eleven
o'clock-
A. What kind of phone call? He knew a long time
ago. This is a normal proceeding. He should know that
he was supposed to come down here.
Q. How should he know?
A. How , like any other witness. Either subpoenaed
or you give advance notice in some form or another.
You don't call a man on the spur of a moment.
Q. Didn't you hear Mr. Herman's testimony yester-
day?
A. What?
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Mr. Herman's testimony about how he asked Mr.
Rodriguez to come down?
A. It is a lot of nonsense . Mr. Herman is sitting there
with him . If he wants permission to get a man down,
he asks me , that 's normal , or goes to his attorney, or go
to the Hearing Officer and ask him for permission.
Katz went on to say that under extenuating circum-
stances Seegull would have permission to allow a person to
leave but that he did not consider this particular situation
extenuating circumstances and that Seegull would not have
had permission or authorization to allow anyone to leave
under these circumstances . He does not indicate how any-
one could have gotten permission under these circum-
stances to leave. Finally, Katz testified:
Q. Now, specifically, did you fire him because he
left the premises without obtaining any permission?
A. Without permission , that's correct.
Katz added that Rodriguez should have notified him and
concludes, "I can't believe he was called on the spur of the
moment."
Respondent and General Counsel noting the credibility
conflicts as to whether Perrella was at work on the 27th and
whether Herman spoke to Perrella on the phone on the 28th,
feel that a credibility resolution must be made in order to
determine the case . However , it is not necessary to make
such credibility resolutions in order to find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) in discharging Jose Rodri-
guez . It appears clear that if Perrella was not present, then
Seegull was in charge of the shop. There is no dispute that
a telephone call was made to Rodriguez by Herman asking
him to come to the hearing and that Rodriguez mentioned
this to Seegull who according to Respondent was the only
supervisor on the premises . Seegull did not refuse permis-
sion but merely stood by while Rodriguez punched out and
left. Certainly the maxim that silence constitutes assent
would be true in such a situation . Although Gerald Katz
testified that Rodriguez ' prior absentee record was consid-
ered in reaching the decision to discharge him, it is clear that
the fact that Rodriguez left the plant to go to the hearing
was the operative reason for the discharge here as is seen
from Katz testimony quoted above.
From his testimony it is clear that Katz thought Respon-
dent was being put upon and abused by Herman's calling
of Rodriguez at the last moment and that prior arrange-
ments for his presence should have been made. Katz ad-
vanced no facts on which to ground his conclusions and
feelings that this was some sort of a "put up job." It appears
evident that Katz became angry at the way the events oc-
curred and determined to fire Rodriguez because he had left
the plant to go to the hearing. As noted above, when he first
heard of it, he told Seegull that it was an unauthorized
absence despite the fact that Seegull at least by his silence
consented to Rodriguez leaving.
By this resolution of the facts I do not find it necessary
to resolve the two credibility conflicts, but even if such were
necesary , the resolution would be the same since I found
that Perrella was somewhat evasive in his testimony and
that some parts of Katz' testimony contradicted Seegull,
whom I thought was a more truthful witness. The circum-
stances of the case and some objective facts also point to
such a conclusion.
Therefore I find and conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Jose Rodriguez on
March 28, 1973.
F. Threat of Christmas Bonus Loss, Raimundo Bonilla and
Lost Merchandise and the Coffee Drinking Allegation
General Counsel alleged that Respondent by Gerald
Katz threatened that Christmas bonuses might be stopped
if the employees selected the Union as their bargaining
agent in the election . Raimundo Bonilla testified that
Christmas bonuses were given annually as long as he had
been employed by Respondent . Gerald Katz testified that
on the morning of the election , in a speech to all the employ-
ees he said, ". . . if there (was) sufficient union interference
with my operation , the profits wouldn 't be there , by that, I
meant the profits to share in terms of salary increases and
Christmas bonuses."
When this statement is viewed in the light of
Respondent 's statements and actions in regard to raises and
the other violations Respondent committed, I must con-
clude that this is a not too subtle hint that if the employees
vote for the Union , there is a great likelihood that there will
be no more Christmas bonuses and that wage raises will also
be in jeopardy . I find that this statement is a threat in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
General Counsel amended the complaint during the hear-
ing to allege that Respondent acted discriminatorily to
Raimundo Bonilla by dunning him for $134 for merchan-
dise which was lost while in his possession . General Counsel
offered testimony that some employees had lost items of
small value and had not been required to pay for them.
Respondent offered uncontradicted testimony that it ab-
sorbed the loss of small items but required its employees to
pay for items of greater value which they lost. Testimony
was produced that two or three employees were requested
to pay for merchandise in the area of $100 or so and that
two or three employees left the Respondent 's employ when
they did not pay the requested amount.
On the basis of this testimony it is clear that Bonilla was
not accorded any discriminatory treatment and this allega-
tion of the complaint must be dismissed.
There is a complaint allegation that Respondent had
changed the coffee drinking procedure and forbidden em-
ployees to drink coffee during working time . Rivera 's testi-
mony on direct would serve to establish this. However,
doing his cross -examination it became clear that Rivera had
been warned by Seegull that when on delivery work he was
not to bring coffee back to the plant at the request of the
men. This practice is what the Company had consistently
and specifically forbade. On this basis I conclude that the
allegation concerning changing the coffee drinking practice
at Respondent was erroneously grounded and that the alle-
gation must be dismissed.
CHARLES PERRELLA RING CO. 35
G. Objections to the Election
On the basis of the findings of 8(axl) violations noted
above and the findings of 8(a)(3) violations in regard to
Rivera and Rodriguez and from the other evidence recited
above, I find that the objections to the election 2, 4, 5, and
7 are supported by evidence and that the election held in
this case on May I should be set aside. Due to my further
findings that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act and a bargaining order is necessary to remedy
the situation, I further recommend that the representation
petition be dismissed.
H. The Refusal to Bargain
As shown above when the Union made its demand for
recognition on March 9, it represented 16 of the 22 persons
in the appropriate unit. Respondent's unfair labor practices
which commenced immediately with interrogation and
threats, ranging through the granting of wage increases and
increased insurance benefits and the discharge of Rodriguez
and "lay-off, of Rivera, to the threat of loss of Christmas
bonuses on the day of the election, had a serious effect on
the employees and dissipated the majority status which the
Union had. With the principles of N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Pack-
ing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969) and Tower Enterprises,
Inc., d/b/a Tower Records, 182 NLRB 382, 385 (1970), as
guidance, it is proper to find that Respondent's violations
of the Act include an improper refusal to bargain with the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
which requires the issuance of an order to bargain with the
Union.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above in section II,
and therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act, occurring
in connection with Respondent's business operations as set
forth above in section 1, have a close, intimate and substan-
tial 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows:
As stated above, an order requiring Respondent to bar-
gain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
unit employees is required in this case. Therefore, it is rec-
ommended that Respondent bargain with the Union at its
request for the employees in the bargaining unit set out
above.
Respondent having laid off Edgardo Rivera and dis-
charged Jose Rodriguez because of its desire to rid itself of
union adherents and not having thereafter offered reinstate-
ment to them, I recommend that Respondent offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions,
or if such positions have been abolished or changed in
Respondent's operations, then to any substantially similar
position without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges and that Respondent make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's discriminatory terminations of them, by pay-
ment to each of them a sum equal to that which he would
have normally received as wages from March 20 and 28,
1973, the dates of their respective terminations , until Re-
spondent offers them reinstatement, less any net earnings
for the interim. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716 (1962). I further recommend that Respondent make
available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other
records in order to facilitate checking the amounts of back-
pay due and the rights of each of the men.
Having also found that Respondent sought to undermine
the Union's majority by interrogating employees, by grant-
ing and withholding raises and by threatening loss of Christ-
mas bonus if the Union was successful in organizing the
plant and having found that Respondent rejected the princi-
ple of collective bargaining and acted to avoid collective
bargaining and has by all the described actions invaded its
employees' rights under the Act as set forth in section II,
above, I am of the opinion that Respondent may commit
further unfair labor practices, having by its actions detailed
herein shown its proclivity for so doing. Since it is part of
the purpose of the Act to prevent the commission of unfair
labor practices, I recommend that Respondent be placed
under a broad enjoinder to cease and desist from in this or
any other manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed its
employees by the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings
and the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by un-
lawful interrogation, by granting and withholding pay raises
and by threatening employees with loss of Christmas bonus-
es if the union was successful in its orgnizational effort.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by the termination of Edgardo Rivera and Jose Rodriguez.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to bargain with the Union upon its request as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit:
All production employees, including jewelers, pol-
ishers, lappers, washout room employees and setters of
Respondent, employed at its New York place of busi-
ness, exclusive of all other employees, including non-
manufacturing inspectors, office clerical employees,
guards, watchrgen, and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDERS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and the entire record in this case considered
as a whole, it is recommended that Charles Perrella and
Gerald Katz, Co-partners d/b/a Charles Perrella Ring
Company of New York, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to
their union activities and desires.
(b) Granting and withholding wage increases where as in
this case Respondent sought to punish union adherents and
reward those opposed to the Union and sought to under-
mine the adherence of union supporters.
(c) Threatening loss of Christmas bonuses if the Union
was successful in organizing the plant.
(d) Discouraging membership in the aforesaid Union, or
any other labor organization , by discriminating against its
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employement or
any other term or condition of employment.
(e) Refusing to bargain with the aforesaid Union upon its
request as the exclusive representative of the following ap-
propriate bargaining unit:
All production employees, including jewelers, polish-
ers, Tappers, washout room employees and setters of
Respondent, employed at its New York place of busi-
ness, exclusive of all other employees, including non-
manufacturing inspectors, office clerical employees,
guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights under Section
7 of the Act.
3 In the event no 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 by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Edgardo Rivera and Jose Rodriguez immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if their
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges.
(b) Make Rivera and Rodriguez whole for any loss of
pay suffered by them by reason of their discriminatory ter-
mination in the manner set forth in the section hereinabove
entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with the aforesaid
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the above-described appropriate unit and embody in a
signed agreement any understanding reached.
(d) Upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll and other
records containing information concerning its backpay
obligation under this recommended Order.
(e) Post at its plant and shop in New York, New York,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appen-
dix." ° Copies of said notice on forms to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 2 shall, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for a period of at least 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case 2-RC-
16077 conducted on May 1, 1973, be set aside and the
petition therein be withdrawn, or dismissed.
4 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."