C.I. Planning Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 503 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

C.I. PLANNING CORP.
C.I. Planning Corp., and Draper and Kramer, Inc.,
Joint Employers and Mauro Squicciarini. Case 29-
CA-5098
June 27, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On March 29, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard Ness issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,l and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, C.I. Planning
Corporation and Draper and Kramer, Inc., Islip,
Long Island, New York, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge refers to a meeting
"between Powers and the Union (on) May 21." Since it is clear he intended
to state that the meeting was between Powers and Nader. we correct this
inadvertent error.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD NESS, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing in
this proceeding was held at Brooklyn, New York, on
November 18, 19, and 29, 1976. The complaint, issued by
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board on August 12, was based upon an unfair labor
practice charge filed by Mauro Squicciarini, an individual,
on July 8, 1976. The complaint alleges that C.I. Planning
Corp. and Draper and Kramer, Inc., jointly called the
Respondent, and referred to individually as C.I.P. and
Draper, respectively, discharged Squicciarini on May 27,
1976, in violation of Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act,
because of his activities on behalf of Suffolk County
District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union.
The complaint further alleges that Respondent, through
Jerry Fuchs, an admitted supervisor, on April 28, unlawful-
ly threatened an employee with discharge and other
reprisals and unlawfully offered benefits, in violation of
Section 8(aXl) of the Act. The Respondent, in its answer,
has denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. I
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the oral argument
made by the General Counsel at the hearing and the brief
filed by the Respondent, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Draper and Kramer, Inc., an Illinois corporation, with its
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the
management of residential and commercial properties. C.I.
Planning Corp., a New York corporation, with its head-
quarters in New York City, is engaged in performing
advisory services to real estate investment trusts, including,
inter alia, C.I. Realty Investors which owns various rental
properties including a residential apartment complex
known as Forest Green Apartments, herein called Forest
Green, located in Islip, Long Island, New York. At all
times material herein, C.I.P. and Draper have been parties
to a contract whereby Draper has been employed as the
managing agent for Forest Green. During the year
preceding the issuance of the complaint Draper purchased
and received goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000, which were transported and delivered to Forest
Green from other enterprises located in New York, each of
which other enterprises had received the said goods and
materials in interstate commerce directly from outside the
State of New York. During this same period, Draper
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in and for
various enterprises located in States other than the State of
Illinois. I find, as Respondent admits, that Draper and
C.I.P. constitute a single employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR OROANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The complaint was amended at the hearing to reflect C.I.P.'s correct
name as it appears in the caption and was also amended in other minor
respects.
230 NLRB No. 72
503
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Charging Party Squicciarini is no stranger to Board
proceedings. In Gates Air Conditioning, Inc., 199 NLRB
1101 (1972), in which he was the charging party, he was
found to have been unlawfully refused rehire in August
1971 because he had filed a claim for wages with the New
York State Department of Labor and he was again
unlawfully refused employment in September 1971 because
of his activities on behalf of Local 295 of the Operating
Engineers. In Colonie Hill Ltd, 212 NLRB 747 (1974),
where he was again a charging party, the Board found he
was unlawfully discharged in June 1973 because of his
persistent opposition to the union which had earlier been
found to be a company-assisted union.2
Draper serves as the managing agent for CIP at the
Forest Green residential apartment complex. In charge at
the site is the resident manager. During the relevant period
involved, the staff consisted of two office clerical employ-
ees, two to three maintenance employees, two porters, and
one to two painters. The staff is supplemented during the
summer months. Kenneth Green, assistant vice president
for Draper, who resides in Cleveland, Ohio, is in charge of
management operations for Draper in specific areas,
including the New York area where the Forest Green
complex is situated. He normally visits the Forest Green
complex one or two times a month and is in telephone
communication with the resident manager several times
weekly.
Squicciarini initially commenced his employment with
the Respondent at the Forest Green complex in July 1974
as a maintenance employee. Joyce Kleinfeld became the
resident manager in August 1975. On September 26, 1975,
Kleinfeld told Squicciarini he was discharged because of
personality conflicts and because a superintendent had
been hired who would live on the premises.3 Earlier that
week John Powers, the Union's business representative,
contacted Squicciarini and then met with the employees on
September 23. Four employees signed union authorization
cards on that date. Two more employees signed cards on
September 24. On the latter date, Powers met with
Kleinfeld at the complex and requested recognition on
behalf of the maintenance employees. Kleinfeld replied she
had no authority to grant recognition and would have to
relay the request to higher management. On September 29,
Powers filed an unfair labor practice charge with the New
York State Labor Relations Board alleging Squicciarini
was discharged because of his union activities. At or about
2 The Board decision issued on August 6, 1974.
3 Squicciarini was the lead maintenance man but had refused to live on
the premises. On weekends and other off-duty hours he had been called
upon to return to the premises for emergency maintenance work. Shortly
before his discharge he had told Kleinfeld he would no longer cover
emergency calls at off-duty hours because he had not received a wage
increase promised to him months earlier by Ernest Nader, CIP's vice
president.
4 Green testified he was on vacation at the time Squicciarini was
dismissed. Kleinfeld testified she discharged Squicciarini without any prior
notification to higher management.
s Not the counsel who represented the Respondent at the hearing.
6 Nader testified he was unaware Squicciarini had been discharged at the
time Squicciarini called and he told Squicciarini he would look into it. He
this time Powers met with Green and Kleinfeld. 4 When
Green refused recognition, saying he would have to consult
with CIP, Powers threatened to pull the men out on strike.
Later that evening Green prevailed upon Powers to talk to
the Respondent's attorney before taking any strike action.
Powers testified that, when he met with the Respondent's
attorney on October 7, he was told the Union would be
given recognition provided Powers would agree that
Squicciarini not be reinstated.5 He refused. In the mean-
time, Squicciarini had called Nader on September 26 after
he had been discharged by Kleinfeld. He complained that
his discharge was unfair and that he would file charges with
the New York State Labor Relations Board. Nader
responded he got what he deserved because he was
responsible for bringing in the Union. 6 About the second
week in October, Powers met with Nader and requested
Squicciarini be reinstated. They agreed that Squicciarini
would be reinstated and the charge would be withdrawn.
Squicciarini was reinstated on October 29 with backpay
and started receiving overtime pay for work performed
during off-duty hours.7 Nader's explanation for reinstating
Squicciarini was unconvincing. He testified he visited
Forest Green and Kleinfeld told him of the problems she
had been experiencing with Squicciarini. He further
testified he then told Green that Squicciarini should be
reinstated because the complex did not have a maintenance
man at the site.8 He also testified he did not tell Green of
the pending unfair labor practice charge or that the Union
was pressing to have Squicciarini reinstated.9 In any event,
when Squicciarini was reinstated, the charge was with-
drawn.
Nader visited Forest Green about the second week in
November 1975.10 Nader and Squicciarini gave conflicting
versions of their conversation that day. Squicciarini
testified Nader apologized for his comments at the time
Squicciarini called him about his discharge. Nader then
promised him a raise, provided he got out of the Union and
dropped his charge for past overtime pay he had filed with
the Department of Labor. Squicciarini further testified
Nader offered him a profit-sharing plan or a job at CIP's
other projects in the country. Nader also commented that,
if CIP had its way, it would get rid of Mrs. Kleinfeld.
Squicciarini refused to drop his activities in and support for
the Union. Nader, on the other hand, testified his purpose
in talking to Squicciarini was to make him aware of his
obligations to take orders from Mrs. Kleinrfeld. Squicciarini
expressed a reluctance to take orders from her. Squicciarini
also said through the Union he could get medical benefits.
Nader replied if Squicciarini still wanted the Union, it was
testified there was no discussion of unionization. Recognizing Squicciarini's
propensity for filing charges and claims with government agencies, I credit
Squicciarini's version. It was only 2 days earlier that the demand for
recognition was made. It is unlikely such an event would not have come to
Nader's attention promptly.
7 After his discharge Squicciarini had also filed a claim for overtime pay
with the U.S. Department of Labor. At the time of the instant hearing, it had
not been finally resolved.
s Contrary to his earlier testimony that he believed a replacement had
been put on.
9 Contrary to Green's testimony who said Nader referred to conversa-
tions he had with Powers.
o1 He visited the complex 12 to 15 times a year.
504
C.l. PLANNING CORP.
his voluntary decision to make. Nader denied telling
Squicciarini he would give him a profit-sharing plan or
offering him a job elsewhere. I was not impressed with the
testimony of either witness concerning this conversation.
Squicciarini testified at length at the hearing and under-
went vigorous cross-examination. His recollection of
details was generally good. On the whole his testimony was
credible but there were instances where he appeared more
concerned with serving what he considered his own best
interests than with reporting what accurately transpired. As
to Nader, he generally did not impress me as a forthright
and reliable witness and his testimony was generally
unconvincing. He appeared more devoted to promoting the
Respondent's interests. I am reminded of the language in
the Universal Camera case 1 ' where the Court said, "It is no
reason for refusing to accept everything a witness says,
because you do not believe all of it, nothing is more
common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe
some and not all." It should be noted that the complaint
does not allege any of Nader's comments at this meeting to
have violated the Act since the event occurred more than 6
months preceding the filing of the charge. After viewing the
witnesses as they testified and considering the likely
probabilities, I do not accept completely either account of
the conversation, but this much can be gleaned from the
credited testimony and the events that preceded the
conversation. The Respondent was aware that Squicciarini
was responsible for attempting to bring in the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative for the maintenance
employees. Upon Powers' urging after unfair labor practice
charges were filed with the New York State Labor
Relations Board, Nader caused Squicciarini to be reinstat-
ed and the charges were withdrawn. Still pending was
Squicciarini's claim for past overtime pay filed with the
Department of Labor. I do not believe Nader offered
Squicciarini a profit-sharing plan or a job elsewhere in the
country. However, I am convinced Nader attempted to
dissuade Squicciarini from further promotion of the Union
and in processing his claim for earlier overtime pay. In this
he was unsuccessful.
B. The Union's Efforts To Obtain Recognition
Powers initially requested recognition from Kleinfeld on
September 24, 1975. Shortly afterward, he met with Green
and then with the Respondent's attorney. Powers met with
Nader in early October, but this was to discuss Squicciari-
ni's reinstatement. Powers testified he had three subsequent
meetings with Nader to discuss recognition of the Union
and a contract but Nader never made any counterpropos-
als or agreed to recognize the Union. The most recent
meeting between Nader and Powers before Squicciarini's
discharge was scheduled for May 21, 1976, at Forest
Green. Powers was there but had been called away and the
meeting was not held. Another meeting was scheduled for
later in May but this too was not held because of the
unavailability of one of the parties. Nader's testimony
" N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749(C.A. 2, 1950),
reversed on other grounds 340 U.S. 474 (1951).
12 Six days before Squicciarini was discharged. Squicciarini testified
Powers was at Forest Green on May 21 and earlier that month Nader had
mentioned to him he would be back at Forest Green to discuss union
matters with Powers.
concerning his meetings with Powers is not credited. He
testified the meeting scheduled to be held at the complex
was in early December 1975 rather than in May 21, 1976.12
Nader testified that, at each of the meetings with Powers,
he was repeatedly told by Powers that Squicciarini was
pestering him to seek recognition, that Powers was not
interested in representing the employees, and Powers kept
urging him to give Squicciarini some additional benefits so
that Squicciarini would stop bothering the Union. Nader
testified that Powers did not seek recognition or make any
proposals concerning a contract. Nader testified he kept
responding to Powers that Squicciarini would not get any
more benefits than other employees and Squicciarini's
pestering the Union was no concern of his. Accordingly, I
find that since September 1975 the Union was requesting
recognition to represent the maintenance employees and,
at three meetings prior to Squicciarini's discharge of May
27, this subject was discussed. I also find that a meeting
scheduled for May 21 was for the purpose of further
discussion of recognition.
C. The Discharge of Squicciarini
Jerry Fuchs, a CIP property coordinator and admitted
supervisor who worked under Nader, visited Forest Green
on April 28. He engaged Squicciarini in a conversation.
Nobody else was within earshot although Kleinfeld was
aware they were conversing outside. Fuchs, who left CIP
on about May 21, was not called as a witness. Squicciarini
credibly testified they first discussed the complex and the
good condition it was in. Fuchs then brought up the Union.
Fuchs said the Union was causing a lot of trouble for the
Respondent and that the Respondent would have to pay
higher wages to the employees with a union in the picture.
He told Squicciarini to get out of the Union. When
Squicciarini said he would stay with the Union, Fuchs said
he would fire him. Squicciarini then asked if Fuchs was
threatening him and pointed out that other employees had
also signed union cards. Fuchs then said he would fire the
entire crew and get new employees. Squicciarini stood firm
and said he would still support the Union. According to
Squicciarini, Fuchs then asked him if he wanted to be the
resident manager or superintendent. Squicciarini replied he
was not interested in these positions but through the Union
he could get benefits that the Respondent did not provide.
Fuchs then told Squicciarini, if he really wanted a union,
the Respondent could bring in a union like "Local 32B."
Again Squicciarini said he would stick with the Union.
Fuchs then said he would get back to Squicciarini in a
couple of weeks. He never did. That evening Squicciarini
called Powers and informed him of his conversation with
Fuchs. Powers in turn called Nader and complained that
Fuchs was threatening to discharge Squicciarini and he
told Nader he would file charges with the Board.' 3 Nader
told Powers, Fuchs was no longer with CIP.
Squicciarini was scheduled to work on Thursday, May
27, but had left word he was going to the Veterans
13 Squicciarini, himself, filed unfair labor practice charges with the
Board's Regional Office on May 27, before he was aware of his discharge
(Case 29-CA-5025). The charge alleged a refusal to bargain with the Union
and also alleged as violations of Sec. 8(aX)(1) threats and promises of benefits.
(Continued)
505
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Administration Hospital and wouldn't be in that day. That
morning he visited the Board's Regional Office and filed
the charges referred to above. In the afternoon he visited
the hospital. That evening he received a call from one of
the employees alerting him that he would be receiving a
telegram notifying him of his discharge. His next scheduled
workday was Tuesday, June 1. He had not yet received the
telegram.' 4 When he came to the office he received the
word from Kleinfeld of his termination. Upon his request,
he was given a copy of the telegram. The telegram stated he
was terminated effective May 27 and read in part: "Due to
your inability to accomplish the job assigned, specifically
you have not followed the direction given to you by the
manager and have not been available for emergency duty
as required by your job."
D. The Respondent's Defense
Assuming the responsibility for Squicciarini's discharge
was Kenneth Green, Draper's assistant vice president in
charge of the area operations, including Forest Green.
Green testified he made his decision to terminate Squic-
ciarini in early May but decided to wait until his next visit
to Forest Green to effect the termination. He testified he
cleared this action with Draper's vice president, Dunn, in
Chicago, after consultation with Kleinfeld. Green said he
discharged Squicciarini for a variety of reasons - a
buildup of complaints received by him from Kleinfeld and
there was no last straw incident. Kleinfeld had become the
resident manager in August 1975. Bruce Burgess was
brought in to Forest Green as comanager on a temporary
basis as a troubleshooter, principally to work with the
employees in getting apartments ready for occupancy and
to take care of the backlog of work orders. He remained at
Forest Green from November 1975 to February 20, 1976.
During this period, Kleinfeld's responsibilities were pri-
marily devoted to internal office affairs. Upon Burgess'
departure, she assumed complete charge of the complex.
Green said he constantly received reports from Kleinfeld
critical of Squicciarini's performance. Initially he testified
she recommended Squicciarini's discharge over a several
month period but later stated it was first made in May. He
kept telling her to try to work it out. He visited Forest
Green on May 25. He looked over applications on file in
the office and interviewed applicants on May 26. He
decided to hire one, Spinosa, that day as a replacement for
Squicciarini after clearing with Dunn by telephone, and
notified Spinosa to report for work the morning of May 27.
When Green came to the complex on the morning of May
27 he learned Squicciarini would not be working that day.
He then called Dunn to discuss how to proceed further.15
Green testified that Dunn, Kleinfeld, and he then com-
posed the telegram which was sent that morning to
Squicciarini. His testimony does not reveal that he spoke to
Nader at all in contemplation of the discharge or in
connection with the telegram. Yet, Nader testified, Green
made on April 28, obviously referring to the Fuchs conversation and also
alleged assistance to Local 32B. The charge was later withdrawn to permit
further processing of a petition filed with the New York State Labor
Relations Board. An election was held on July 2, 1976. Local Union 307,
Building Trades Service Employees, received a majority of the ballots cast.
The Union also appeared on the ballot.
called him on the morning of May 27 and he instructed
Green to send the telegram. Nader also testified he did not
discuss any decision to terminate Squicciarini with Green
or any other Draper official prior to May 27, but learned of
the decision from Green about May 25 "or so." When
asked why so many management people became involved
in Squicciarini's discharge and the telegram to be sent he
testified as follows: "Because Moe [Squicciarini] after my
conversations with him with the threatening of bringing a
union in if we didn't do certain things for Moe, himself,
made it a case that had to come to the attention of our
company through Draper and Kramer."
Kleinfeld testified that on numerous occasions she
reported to Green problems she was having with Squicciar-
ini. Referring to her comments to Green regarding
Squicciarini, she testified as follows: "I explained to him on
several occasions the things that were going on and I had
just about had enough of it. I guess you would say it was in
May it started to build up more to a point where I couldn't
take any more of it. And then I told him I would like to fire
him." I find it unnecessary to recite all the incidents she
described. I am convinced that in some situations Squic-
ciarini did not act properly, but, on the other hand, it
appeared that Kleinfeld was exaggerating incidents and
trying to dredge up everything but the kitchen sink.16
Although she mentioned it was in May that she finally
made her recommendation to Green for Squicciarini's
discharge, she only pointed to one incident clearly
occurring in May. That involved the installation of an air-
conditioning unit. Kleinfeld testified she had instructed
Squicciarini to install the first unit that became available
into the apartment of a particular tenant before installing
one in another apartment. Yet, Squicciarini did not follow
her instructions - he installed the unit in the other
apartment on May 5. Green testified, Kleinfeld had
reported this incident to him in early May. But towards the
end of her testimony, Kleinfeld admitted she was not aware
of the installation of the air-conditioner until after
Squicciarini was discharged. Obviously this could not have
been one of the reasons for the discharge nor could this
have been reported to Green before the discharge as Green
testified. One of the reasons given in the telegram was
Squicciarini's unavailability for emergency duty. Kleinfeld
described an incident which she said occurred in either
March or April 1976. She testified that on a weekend a
heating problem arose and the answering service informed
her they were unable to locate Squicciarini; that his wife
had said he was away on Naval Reserve duty that
weekend. Kleinfeld then had the work done by a fuel
cbmpany. She testified that when Squicciarini reported for
work the following Monday she asked him where he had
been and he told her that the other maintenance man,
Thompson, had been told. Although she initially attempted
to fault Squicciarini for not being available, her testimony
was inconsistent. She also testified that the practice was for
Squicciarini and Thompson to decide who would be on call
14 He had received a post card that an undelivered telegram was at the
Hempstead office.
15 In his testimony he stated he called "my superior again to discuss how
to proceed further." In earlier testimony he referred several times to Dunn
as his "superior."
16 Squicciarini was primarily a plumber.
506
C.I. PLANNING CORP.
and then they would tell her. She later conceded that
Thompson was equally at fault in not notifying her. Thus,
Squicciarini could hardly be faulted for being "unavail-
able." She also testified she was aware Squicciarini went to
Naval Reserve training on weekends but "I didn't keep
tabs on the weekends he went." She also referred to a
tenant incident which she said occurred after Burgess left
- sometime from March to May. She testified she received
a complaint from a tenant that Squicciarini had threatened
to hit her small daughter and told the girl he'd be glad
when "you and your fat mother move." She further
testified that when Squicciarini came to the office he told
her he had attempted to have the girl curb her dog and she
called him an "SOB." She first testified that Squicciarini
said he "threatened to hit her." But then she changed her
testimony and stated that Squicciarini told her "if he had a
daughter like that he'd slap her or something, she was fresh
and she call him an 'SOB.' "
Analysis and Discussion
In September 1975, the Respondent was aware that
Squicciarini was the moving force in attempting to bring in
the Union as the bargaining representative for the
Respondent's maintenance employees. I do not believe
Kleinfeld was alone in causing his discharge at that time.
As Green testified, Squicciarini was discharged "by my
superiors." Kleinfeld does not qualify as his "superior."
Particularly unimpressive was Kleinfeld's testimony that
when Green told her Squicciarini was to be reinstated she
exhibited no curiosity nor did she inquire as to why
Squicciarini was to be reinstated. This I find incredible if
she, herself, was responsible for the discharge. Nader,
himself, was involved in causing Squicciarini's discharge at
that time as evidenced by his remarks to Squicciarini that
very evening of the discharge to the effect that Squicciarini
got what he deserved for bringing in the Union. This
occurred just 2 days after the Union first requested
recognition. After Squicciarini was reinstated and, recog-
nizing that he was the moving force behind the Union, the
Respondent attempted to dissuade him from further
support of the Union. This was evidenced by Nader's
attempt in November 1975 to discourage him from further
promotion of the Union and in processing his claim for
overtime pay with the Department of Labor. And on April
28, 1976, Fuchs offered benefits to Squicciarini to induce
him to refrain from further support of the Union and
threatened him with discharge in his unsuccessful attempts
to swing Squicciarini away from the Union. Kleinfeld
testified she observed Fuchs talking to Squicciarini but did
not know what they discussed. She stated that Fuchs came
to the office after the discussion and she asked Fuchs "if
everything was okay." Fuchs laughed and said "we had a
conflict of personalities." I do not credit her testimony that
nothing further was said. Rather I believe she, as well as
Respondent's higher management, was informed of Fuchs'
unsuccessful attempts to discourage Squicciarini from
supporting the Union.
Although it cannot be said that the Union frequently
pressed its demand for recognition, equally true is the fact
that it did not abandon this objective. A meeting between
Powers and the Union was scheduled for May 21 but this
was aborted. It was obvious to the Respondent the Union
was still demanding recognition when it discharged
Squicciarini 6 days later. I am persuaded Squicciarini had
shortcomings in the manner in which he conducted
himself, but, as stated earlier, the testimony of Green and
Kleinfeld concerning his deficiencies was overly exaggerat-
ed. I am convinced that, had Squicciarini acceded to
Fuchs' request to give up his support of the Union, he
would not have been discharged when he was. According-
ly, I find, as alleged in the complaint, Respondent on April
28, 1976, through its agent, Fuchs, threatened Squicciarini
with discharge and offered him benefits to induce him to
refrain from further supporting the Union. Such conduct
violated Section 8(aXI) of the Act. I further conclude that
Respondent's discharge of Squicciarini on May 27, 1976,
motivated as it was by his refusal to give up his efforts to
support the Union, violated Section 8(aX3) 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 connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(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. By offering benefits to employees and threatening
discharge or other disciplinary action to dissuade employ-
ees from supporting the Union, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
4. By discharging Mauro Squicciarini because of his
union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Mauro Squicciarini, it will be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to offer him full and
immediate reinstatement, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and to reimburse him for any
loss of pay he may have suffered. Backpay shall be
507
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent
per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962), from the date of discharge to the date
reinstatement is offered.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER 17
The Respondent, C.I. Planning Corp. and Draper and
Kramer, Inc., Islip, Long Island, New York, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, support for, or activi-
ties on behalf of Suffolk County District Council, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminating
against its employees in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, because of their union membership, sympa-
thies, or activities.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or other
reprisals because of their union activities.
(c) Offering or promising benefits to discourage union
activities.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Mauro Squicciarini immediate and full rein-
statement to his former position or, if his job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Forest Greern complex in Islip, Long Island,
New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."'8 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by
1" 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.
18 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately 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 material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NoncE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post this notice; we intend to carry out the
Order of the Board and abide by the following.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through representative
of their choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
or other reprisals in order to discourage union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT offer or promise benefits in order to
discourage our employees from engaging in union
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against our employees because they join or suport
Suffolk County District Council, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to engage in or to refrain from engaging in any or
all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act.
WE wnLL offer Mauro Squicciarini immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
We wvLL make whole Mauro Squicciarini for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered because we
discharged him, with interest at 6 percent per annum.
C.I. PLANNINO CORP., AND
DRAPER AND KRAMER, INC.,
JOINT EMPLOYERS
508