City Welding & Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
City Welding & Manufacturing Company and Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District No. 106 , AFL-CIO and Em-
ployee Grievance Committee . Case 6-CA-5019
June 14, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On February 26, 1971, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions' of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, City Welding & Manufacturing Company,
New Castle, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
' While Chairman Miller agrees that a bargaining order is appropriate
herein, he would, for reasons stated in his separate concurrence in United
Packing Company ofJowa, Inc., 187 NLRB No. 132, predicate this remedy
solely upon the extensive 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) violations found herein
2 In section III of his Decision, under the classification "J The Union's
Majority," the Trial Examiner stated that 16 of the cards received in evi-
dence were "unaffected by any testimony affecting their validity as unam-
biguous authorizations for the Union to represent the employees signing
those cards " In fact, two of these cards were challenged by the Respondent
as being invalid, namely, the cards of Jerry Passerrello and Curtis Crill.
However, as failure to count these cards will have no effect upon the Union's
majority at any time material, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the issues
raised with respect to them.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Based upon a
second amended charge filed on July 15, 1970,' by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
District No. 106, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union, the
Machinists, or the Charging Party), the complaint herein
issued on August 31 alleging that City Welding & Manufac-
turing Company (herein called City Welding, the Company,
or the Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
called the Act). The alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) con-
sisted of creation of the impression of surveillance of the
employees' union activities; promises of wage increases if the
employees refrained from union activity; threats of plant clo-
sure; loss of employment and of a reduction in wages if the
employees selected the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive; interrogation of the employees concerning their own
union activities and those of their fellow employees; requests
that the employees sign a disavowal of the Union; and re-
quests that the employees return their union authorization
cards to the Respondent. The Company allegedly violated
Section 8(a)(2) by initiating and promoting the Employees
Grievance Committee; allowing the Committee to use plant
facilities during working hours to conduct its meetings; pro-
viding its facilities to conduct an election of the Committee's
representatives and permitting the employees to vote for
those representatives during working hours; urging the em-
ployees to negotiate and process grievances through the Com-
mittee, rather than through the Union; and dictating the form
and structure of the Committee, and the qualifications, du-
ties, term of office and method of election of Committee
representatives. The putative violations of Section 8(a)(3)
consisted of the discharges of Edward Callahan on February
6 and Albert Lengyel on February 12 and the discharges of
eight named employees on or about June 22. Finally, the
Company was alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(5) by
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union on June 22,
although the Union was the duly authorized bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees.
In its answer the Company admitted the filing and service
of the charges, the commerce data spelled out in the com-
plaint, and the labor organization status of the Charging
Party. The answer denied all other allegations of the com-
plaint.
Prior to the hearing the General Counsel advised the Re-
spondent of his intention to amend the complaint by alleging
the supervisory status of eight alleged foremen. At the hear-
ing the General Counsel amended the complaint to allege that
the Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) by the an-
nouncement and subsequent grant of a wage increase in June
or July.
During the hearing the Company withdrew its denial to
certain allegations of the complaint. The allegations thus ad-
mitted are:
6. Respondent, by its officers, agents and representa-
tives, at its New Castle, Pennsylvania, plant, has inter-
fered with, restrained and coerced, and is interfering
with, restraining and coercing, its employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by
the following acts and conducts:
' Unless otherwise noted all dates herein were in 1970. The original
charge was filed on May 13 and the first amended charge was filed on July
10.
191 NLRB No. 30
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 125
(e) By Anthony Marinelli , Jr., in February 1970,
threatened employees with plant closure if they se-
lected the Union as their bargaining representative.
The complaint alleged, Respondent admitted, and I find
that the Respondent is and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's
standards for assertion of its jurisdiction.
(g) By Harry Colucci, in February 1970, threat-
ened employees with lower wages if they selected
the Union as their bargaining representative.
(h) By Harry Colucci, Anthony Marinelli, Sr.,
Ronald Duda, Anthony Marinelli, Jr., and Michael
Pietro in February, and by Joseph Marinelli in the
months of February and June 1970, interrogated
employees concerning their Union membership, ac-
tivities and sympathies, and the Union membership,
activities and sympathies of their fellow employees.
* * * * *
(j) By Joseph Marinelli, Ronald Duda and Mi-
chael Pietro in February 1970, requested employees
to return their Union authorization cards to Re-
spondent.
As to the 8(a)(3) violations, the Company withdrew its
denial that it had discharged Callahan and Lengyel but reiter-
ated its contention that those terminations were not in viola-
tion of the Act. With respect to the discharge of eight em-
ployees' on June 22 and 23, the Company admitted "that the
named individuals ... were discharged because they engaged
in a work stoppage or strike."
Respondent admitted at the hearing that it had "pro-
moted" the Employees Grievance Committee and "that they
conducted an election on our premises."
Finally, it was stipulated at the hearing that all or substan-
tially all the employees received a pay raise from the Re-
spondent which was paid to them on or about July 2.
All parties participated in the hearing in New Castle, Penn-
sylvania, on October 22 and 23 and October 28, 29, and 30
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce
evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
present oral argument. Oral argument was waived and briefs
were filed by General Counsel and the Respondent.
Based upon the entire record' in the case, my reading of the
briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses and their
demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
City Welding & Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal office in New Castle, Pennsyl-
vania, is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of
truck trailers. During the year preceding issuance of the com-
plaint the Company shipped goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania.
' Clair Catterson, William Summerville, Robert Jones, Walter Korab,
Frank Genareo, Joseph Todd, Randy Rubeis, and Donald Macarella.
' On December 4 General Counsel filed a motion to correct transcript of
the hearing in certain specified respects as set forth in said motion. On
December 8 I issued an Order To Show Cause on or before December 21
why the corrections set forth in General Counsel's motion should not be
made. There were no responses to said Order To Show Cause. Accordingly,
General Counsel's motion to correct transcript is granted and General
Counsel's motion (hereby marked TX Exh 1) and the Order To Show Cause
(hereby marked TX Exh. 2) are received in evidence as exhibits in this
proceeding
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District No. 106, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all
times material herein a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The Employees Grievance Committee (herein called the
Committee) came into existence on June 23 under circum-
stances fully discussed below in section III, H, of this Deci-
sion. That same day the three committeemen who had been
elected by the employees to represent specified sections of the
plant held their first meeting with Joe Marinelli, Respond-
ent's president. Constant Evanoski III testified that he was
one of the original committeemen. While he was on the Com-
mittee there were at least five meetings with Joe Marinelli.
Evanoski testified that all new employees automatically
became members of the Committee when hired. Although
there was no document prepared describing the Committee,
the committeemen defined its purpose to the men in the shop.
There were no dues collected and the Committee had no
expenses. The committeemen informed the men about their
discussions with Joe Marinelli.
Evanoski testified that "we would go in and bargain for the
guys." Among the subjects discussed with the Company's
president were wages, a pension plan, vacations , Saturday
overtime, and existing shop problems. On the subject of
wages Joe Marinelli asked the Committee representatives for
their opinion as to what,`the men wanted . Marinelli testified
that he talked to the Committee before granting the July wage
increase . In connection with their discussions about wages
the Committee representatives did research on what other
employers in the New Castle area were paying. In the course
of these discussions Joe Marinelli set the wage for foremen at
$3.45 an hour, but, Evanoski testified, it was not the Commit-
tee's job to negotiate for the foremen.
The Committee, an "employee representation committee,"
in which the employees participated by election and member-
ship, exists for the purpose of dealing with Respondent con-
cerning the employees' wages and such conditions of employ-
ment as overtime, vacations , and a pension plan.
Accordingly, I find that the Committee is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.° N.L.R.B.
v. Cabot Carbon Company, 360 U.S. 203; Pruden Products
Company, 170 NLRB No. 32, enfd. 422 F.2d 855 (C.A. 7).
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Unit and the Supervisory Personnel
The complaint alleged and at the hearing the Respondent
stipulated that
All production and maintenance employees employed at
the Respondent's New Castle, Pennsylvania, plant, ex-
cluding office clerical employees and guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act
Sec. 2(5) of the Act, 61 Stat 138, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152(5) provides. "The
term `labor organization' means any organization of any kind, or any agency
or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees partici-
pate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with
employers concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or conditions of work "
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
Pursuant to a subpena served by General Counsel calling
for production of a list of employees in the unit as of the time
the Union demanded recognition , the Respondent furnished
a list of 67 names. By agreement of the parties seven names
were dropped because those employees had been hired subse-
quent to the demand for recognition and a 61st name , omitted
by inadvertence , was added . However, as to 8 names' on the
revised list of 61 names , the parties are in sharp disagreement
as to whether they should properly be included in the unit,
General Counsel contending , pursuant to his amendment to
the complaint , that the 8 are foremen and supervisors within
the meaning of the Act, and Respondent taking the position
that the contested 8 are keymen , employees who are not
possessed of supervisory authority.
Testimony was offered as to the duties of the eight in-
dividuals in general and, as to certain of the eight , there was
testimony concerning those individuals by name . Both in his
testimony during the course of the hearing and in his pretrial
affidavit , Joseph Marinelli, Respondent's president , stated
that all of these eight individuals , whom he characterized as
"keymen," were possessed of the same authority over the men
in the respective departments . In determining the supervisory
status of the eight contested employees the testimony as to
specific named individuals is considered first.
1. Edward ,Hallowich
Walter Korab , employed in the flatbed department to
which Edward Hallowich ' is assigned, testified that he re-
ceives all of his work assignments from Edward Hallowich
and that he takes any on-the-job problems to Hallowich who
checks Korab 's work . Korab testified that,when he had im-
properly performed work he was spoken to by Edward Hal-
lowich who showed Korab how to do the work properly and
that Korab then redid the work. Further , Korab stated that
if he runs out of work he goes to Edward Hallowich, whom
he regards as his foreman , for a new assignment. Korab
testified that Edward Hallowich received the written work
orders for the flatbed department . As to other supervision in
the flatbed department Korab testified that Harry Colucci,
plant superintendent, spent from 5 minutes to one-half hour
a day in the department.
Both Korab and Constant Evanoski testified that Edward
Hallowich spends the major part of the day on production
work.
Evanoski testified that it was Edward Hallowich who con-
ducted the election for representatives to the Employees
Grievance Committee. At that time Hallowich stated that
foremen would not be allowed to participate in the vote for
committee representatives . Hallowich did not vote in that
election.
Edward Hallowich , one of the two alleged foremen who
testified in the proceeding ,' described his work in the follow-
ing words "I work in the chassis department . I lay out frames
and I help the men work and I work right along with them,
correcting any mistakes that's made." Hallowich punches the
timeclock, is paid $ 3.45 per hour as are all of the eight key-
men, has never been told that he has authority to hire, to fire,
or to give a wage increase, received a Christmas bonus of $300
in 1969, and, as he stated, "gets the same as any other man
except he gets a little more money than the next guy." Hal-
lowich testified that he has been asked by management
' Patsy Circelli , Frank DuBois , Ron Kukich , William Forkey , Edward
Hallowich, Donald Cochran , David Hallowich, and Donald MacIntyre
1 Patsy Circelli also testified.
whether an employee was doing a good job. During the
course of a day, as the need arises, Hallowich will ask men
to move from one task in the department to another. As an
example, Hallowich testified that Plant Superintendent
Colucci will tell him that a certain trailer must go out right
away and that Hallowich will then move men to work on that
particular trailer. At the start of work in the morning the men
in the department come to Hallowich who lays out the work
they are to perform that day. Hallowich denied that he was
responsible for what the men in the department do. He did
testify that if the men don't do their work right they usually
come to him and that where he sees a man "goofing off" he
tells that man to get on the job and if they don 't do their work
Hallowich then reports this to Colucci who straightens out
the matter . As to Colucci 's time in the chassis department
Hallowich testified that the plant superintendent spent "an
hour, 2 hours, sir, coming and going."
2. Donald Cochran and David Hallowich
Cochran and David Hallowich share responsibility for op-
eration of the Company's service department. The service
department, employing some 15 persons , handles the repairs
of damaged trailers rather than the manufacture of new
products . The service department is physically separated
from the rest of the plant by a wall. Cochran and David
Hallowich each spend a week in turn supervising the opera-
tions of the service department . Edward Callahan credibly
testified that during the week Cochran or David Hallowich
run the department they do not perform any production
work. During that week they walk through the department
seeing that the work is being properly performed , assigning
tasks, inspecting the work , and keeping the men on their job.
Callahan testified that if he had trouble on the job he would
consult with either Cochran or David Hallowich, whoever
was on duty that week, that he had been told a number of
times by the supervisor of the week to do work over, and that
he had been shifted around to jobs in the department just
about every day by the supervisor on duty. Further , Callahan
testified that the supervisor on duty talks to employees about
safety conditions and corrects the way employees use pieces
of equipment . Callahan has been asked to work overtime by
David Hallowich, Cochran, and on occasions by Anthony
Marinelli. As to other supervision in the service department
Callahan testified that Plant Superintendent Colucci spends
perhaps 15 or 20 minutes a day in the department , walking
through ; Joseph Marinelli is in the department perhaps 1
hour in the day; Anthony Marinelli is present for about an
equal amount of time, and , Marinelli, Sr., is in and out of the
department during the day for a total of perhaps an hour of
time.
Cochran and David Hallowich share a desk which they use
to write work orders and , Callahan testified , he has seen the
two handling timecards.
Neither Cochran nor David Hallowich testified.
3. Frank DuBois
DuBois is assigned to the fabrication department which
produces parts for use in the other sections of the plant.
Constant Evanoski testified that DuBois directs the em-
ployees in the fabrication department as to the work to be
done , assigns work to them, corrects improperly performed
work, shows the employees how to properly perform their
tasks, and reprimands employees who are slacking up on the
job. Evanoski testified -that it was usual for DuBois to ask the
men if they would stay to do overtime Evanoski estimated
that DuBois spent 90 percent of his time in physical work.
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
DuBois did not testify.
4. William Forkey
Forkey is assigned to the chassis department. Employees
William Summerville and Frank Genareo testified that work
was assigned and checked by Forkey and that they would
take any problems on the job to Forkey. Genareo testified
that on occasion he has been told by Forkey to get moving
or to get back to work. Further, Genareo has been shifted by
Forkey from job to job within the department. Summerville
and Genareo agreed that Forkey performs little production
work during the day, an hour at the most. As to other super-
vision in the department the two employees agreed that Plant
Superintendent Colucci spent no more than one-half hour a
day in the chassis department and that Marinelli, Sr., and his
two sons spend little time there.
William Forkey did not testify.
5. Patsy Circelli
Circelli is assigned to the body department. Albert Lengyel
testified that the employees received their job assignments
from Circelli in the morning and that he reassigned them
during the day if they ran out on work. Circelli checks the
work and on occasion has told Lengyel to redo work he has
performed. Lengyel testified that if he has a problem on the
job he goes to Circelli; that Circelli has told employees to stop
kidding around and to get back to work; that he has been
asked by Circelli to work overtime; and that he has seen
Circelli initial a timecard when an employee failed to punch
the card at the timeclock. Lengyel testified that Circelli works
perhaps 1 hour out of the day at production tasks.
Circelli testified that he is a welder, fitter, and helper in the
body department who works with tools all day. Circelli clocks
in at the timeclock, is paid $3.45 per hour, has never given
a raise to an employee, does not have authority to grant a pay
raise, has never hired nor fired, and does not have authority
to do so.
Circelli was asked if he had ever been told he had a job title
and answered that he was just a worker. Subsequently Circelli
stated, "I'm like a keyman-." It later developed that Circelli
had first heard the term "keyman" in consultation with Re-
spondent's counsel the morning of his appearance as a wit-
ness in this proceeding.
Circelli testified that he does not run the department but
if men have finished their jobs they ask him what to do and
he tells them what they should be working on. Circelli stated
that no one had ever refused to do what he had told them to
do.
General Testimony
As earlier noted Company President Joseph Marinelli
stated that the eight putative foremen all were possessed of
the same authority over the employees in their respective
departments.
Constant Evanoski testified that, at the time elections were
conducted to select representatives to the Employees Griev-
ance Committee, Edward Hallowich who was running the
election stated that everyone was eligible to vote except the
foremen. Hallowich did not vote.' Employee Timothy Burns
testified that Cochran and David Hallowich were present
during the election but did not vote. During the wage negotia-
tions between the Committee and Joseph Marinelli the fore-
men's wage was raised to $3.45 but, Evanoski testified, this
' Edward Hallowich, who testified subsequent to Evanoski's appearance
in these proceedings, did not allude to the election and did not controvert
Evanoski's testimony.
127
rate was set by the company president and it was not the
Committee's job to negotiate for the foremen. This wage rate
applied to the eight named alleged foremen.
Joseph Marinelli testified at length concerning the duties
and status of the eight named individuals. Joseph Marinelli
was a totally incredible witness. Based on my observation of
his demeanor while testifying, the contradictions between his
testimony and the sworn statement he had given prior to trial,
and the inconsistencies in his testimony, I credit Joseph Mari-
nelli only to the extent that specific statements made by him
are corroborated by other credited witnesses. However, cer-
tain statements by Joseph Marinelli are significant in deter-
mining the status of the alleged foremen because they in effect
constitute admissions against interest. Thus, Marinelli tes-
tified that Circelli is the "job supervisor" in the body depart-
ment, DuBois "more or less" heads up the parts department
and the men go to DuBois, and in the service department
Cochran and David Hallowich share the duties and place the
men and take care of work orders. Marinelli stated that when
a man in the department is finished with his job the "keyman"
can tell him to do another job. On the subject of wage in-
creases for the employees Marinelli first testified that when a
"keyman" feels that an individual should have a raise he will
tell Marinelli. However, Marinelli stated this was just a
suggestion and he determines whether the raise should be
given. Shown his affidavit which reads in pertinent part, "If
the key man says the man is ready for a raise, I take his word
for it." Marinelli then stated, "I take his word for it; but
maybe not at that particular time do I then give them the
raise." Marinelli testified that the keymen try to discipline the
employees and can move the men from place to place in their
department. Keymen are paid $3.45 per hour while
production and maintenance employees are paid within a
range from $2.35 to a top of $3.25 per hour. The plant area
is about 60,000 square feet with a total employment of ap-
proximately 85. Marinelli insisted that Colucci, the plant
superintendent, is "absolutely" the only one in charge.
Conclusions
All things considered, I find that the eight named individu-
als8 are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. It has been
held that "the possession of any one of the authorities listed
in § 2(11) [of the Act] places the employee invested with this
authority in the supervisory class" for that "section is to be
interpreted in the disjunctive."' Based upon employee and
keymen testimony and Joseph Marinelli's admissions, it is
clear that the keymen have authority to transfer and assign
employees, can effectively recommend wage increases, and
can discipline employees or effectively recommend such ac-
tion. If Marinelli's testimony that only Colucci is a plant
supervisor is to be believed, Respondent's plant employing
some 85 persons is operated with only 1 supervisor. I cannot
credit Respondent's position that a multidepartment plant of
60,000 square feet, with one department, the service depart-
ment, physically separated from the general area by a wall,
operates without on-the-scene supervision supplied by the
keymen. Moreover, Respondent's action in barring the key-
See fn. 5.
Ohio Power Company v. N.L.R.B., 176 F.2d 385, 387 (C.A 6), cert.
denied 338 U.S. 899. Sec. 2(11) of the Act provides:
The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the
interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, pro-
mote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or re-
sponsibly to direct them, or adjust their grievances, or effectively to
recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exer-
cise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men from voting in the election for employee representatives
to the Committee is evidence of the Company's recognition
that the keymen are foremen and not simply employees. Ad-
ditionally , the keymen are paid 25 cents more than the high-
est paid employees , the wage rate for keymen was not a
subject for negotiation between Marinelli and the Committee
representing the employees, and certain of the keymen do
little or no production work. Walker-Roemer Dairies, Inc.,
186 NLRB No. 66.
I find therfore that at the time of the Union's demand for
recognition there were 53 employees in the bargaining unit."
B. The Union's Organizing Campaign
The Union's organizing campaign among Respondent's
employees commenced on or about January 29, when Paul
Harcar , the Union 's business representative, contacted Ed-
ward Callahan, a company employee, in response to Cal-
lahan's inquiries about organizing directed to a union official.
Harcar met with Callahan at the latter's home that evening
and after a discussion about employee interest in organizing
Harcar suggested that Callahan compile a list of employee
names and addresses to be used in a union mailing. Harcar
left a union authorization card and some union literature with
Callahan that evening. Callahan and Harcar met for a second
time at Callahan's home on or about February 3. At that time
Callahan had compiled a partial list of the employees, some
15 names, and told Harcar that he would have a list contain-
ing a majority of the names within a few days. On February
5, Callahan gave Harcar a fairly complete list of employee
names and addresses and that evening Harcar mailed to
about 35 employees a packet containing a letter from the
Union , a union authorization card, a postpaid return en-
velope, and a piece of organizing literature.
The following day, February 6, Respondent launched a
campaign to induce the employees to turn into the Company
the authorization cards they had received from the Union.
At the hearing the parties entered into the following stipu-
lation:
On February 6 and 7, 1970, Harry Colucci, plant
superintendent, during working hours called a substan-
tial number of employees to the plant office and there
asked the employees to give him authorization cards
received from the Union.
Among the employees who testified that they had been thus
approached to give their authorization cards to the Company
were William Korab, Curtis Crill, Randall Rubeis, Constant
Evanoski, Frank Genareo, and Edward Callahan.
After quitting time on February 6, Callahan called Harcar
to say that he had been discharged.
On February 11, Harcar and Owen Muffler met employees
Albert Lengyel and Ed Bucker outside Callahan's home. At
that time Lengyel gave Harcar authorization cards signed by
Louis Napolitano and Michele Schettino and arrangements
were made for a meeting to be held in Harcar's office that
evening. Nine employees attended the meeting." After
Muffler gave a talk on the history of the Union and a general
discussion of conditions at City Welding and employee inter-
est in union representation, most, if not all, at the meeting
expressed a willingness to solicit for the Union. Harcar told
the men assembled that once a majority of the employees had
signed union cards he would so notify the Company and
request recognition through a card check. Harcar explained
the operation of a card check stating that an impartial third
Lo See Appendix A.
11 Lengyel, Ed Bucker, Clair Catterson, William Summerville, James
Burke, James DeRosa, John Widelko, and Curtis Cn11
party such as a clergyman or a Federal or state mediator
would check the cards against a list of employees submitted
by the Company to determine whether the Union had a
majority. Curtis Crill testified that at this February 11 meet-
ing only a card check was discussed and there was no mention
of an election.
On February 26 the Union handbilled the company plant
at quitting time. Leaflets were distributed by Harcar, Muffler,
Lengyel, Callahan, and Earl Nyman, president of a union
local lodge. While the handbilling was taking place Joseph
Marinelli, company president , Harry Colucci, plant superm-
tendent, and Johnson, a company salesman, stayed outside
the plant watching the handbilling and the employees leaving
the plant.
On June 17 employees William Summerville, Robert Jones,
and Anthony Fundoots came to Harcar's office. At that time
Summerville gave to Harcar 11 or 12 signed authorization
cards. Based upon his impression of the composition of the
bargaining unit Harcar believed that these additional cards
gave the Union majority status and on June 19, by certified
mail, Harcar sent a demand for recognition. The return re-
ceipt for this certified demand for recognition was dated June
20 and signed by Joseph Marinelli.
C. The Discharge of Edward Callahan
Callahan was first employed by the Respondent for about
5 years before, leaving in November 1968 for a better job.
Callahan returned to Respondent's employ on May 12, 1969,
after a conversation with Joseph Marinelli in which Marinelli
asked if Callahan wished to return to City Welding. Callahan
replied that he would return if given a substantial raise. Mari-
nelli agreed to pay Callahan $3 an hour and restore all of his
prior seniority.
At Christmas time 1969, Marinelli loaned Callahan $100
without interest. In January 1970 Callahan received a 10-
cent-per-hour wage increase . In late January Callahan was
given a 3-day layoff for failing to report in that he was out
sick.
Late in January Callahan initiated the Union's organizing
campaign, held several meetings with Harcar , the Union's
representative, and compiled, with the assistance of Albert
Lengyel and James Burke, the list of names and addresses
used for the Union's February 5 mailing of campaign litera-
ture and authorization cards. On February 5 Callahan signed
a union authorization card. This was the second card that
Callahan signed, something having gone awry with the first
card he signed.
On February 6 Callahan was about 1 hour late for work.
When Plant Superintendent Colucci asked if Callahan had
been late and the latter replied that he had, Colucci laughed
and said, "You'll never change." Callahan explained to
Colucci that his lateness was caused by trouble with his
truck. iz
As noted above, on February 6, Respondent engaged in a
major effort to induce the employees to turn in to the Com-
pany the Union authorization cards which had been mailed
to them. Employee Frank Genareo testified that when, on
February 6, Colucci asked if Genareo had received a union
card the plant superintendent also inquired as to whether
anyone had asked for Genareo's name and address. Genareo
testified that Colucci then asked, "Did Eddie Callahan say
anything to you?"
" Colucci did not testify in these proceedings and Callahan's testimony
as to his conversation with Colucci stands unrebutted, as does any testimony
referred to in this Decision which concerns Colucci's activities.
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 129
About 3:15 p.m. on February 6, Callahan was called to the
parts office. There Colucci, with Service Department Fore-
men Donald Cochran and David Hallowich present, showed
Callahan the Union' s mailing and asked if Callahan was
familiar with it. When Callahan said he was not Colucci
asked that he read the material. Colucci explained that the
mailing was to organize a union at City Welding and that a
union was not needed there, the people were happy without
one. Colucci asked Callahan to give him a card if one was
received in the mail. Callahan said that he would. The plant
superintendent then asked if Callahan knew anything about
the mailing and the latter denied any knowledge.
About 3:45 p.m. while Callahan was working under a
trailer, he was approached by Joseph Marinelli and Colucci.
Marinelli asked if Callahan had anything to do with the
Union's organizing effort. When Callahan denied knowledge
of the campaign Marinelli said, "Well, you're a liar. I have
two guys who says you were getting names and addresses."
At that point Callahan admitted his activity and the company
president stated that he had to let Callahan go. When Calla-
han stated that he would fight the discharge Marinelli said he
was not firing Callahan because he was trying to get the
Union in but because he had reported late for work that
morning. Marinelli, Colucci, and Callahan then engaged in a
discussion of shop conditions for about 15 or 20 minutes
during which talk Marinelli asked why Callahan wanted to
bring the Union into the plant. After Marinelli left the group
Colucci offered to talk to Marinelli in an effort to have
premium payments continued on Callahan's hospitalization
insurance, so that benefits could be obtained when the baby
the Callahans were expecting was born, if Callahan would tell
Harcar to "lay off this union stuff.""
On February 12 Joseph Marinelli told Lengyel and Larry
Marshall of his $100 loan to Callahan and stated that Calla-
han had turned around and stabbed him in the back. Mari-
nelli repeated the "stab in the back" phrase while discussing
Callahan with Harcar on February 23 and June 22. Marinelli
added that "no maggot like Ed Callahan [was] going to run
his business." On February 23 Marinelli told Harcar that the
majority of his employees did not want a union and that it
was only the lazy ones who didn't want to work, in which
number he included Callahan, who wanted a union.
Callahan participated in the February 26 handbilling of the
company plant. In March Callahan met Joseph Marinelli at
which time Marinelli said that he had been planning to call
Callahan back but that Callahan was still making trouble for
Marinelli. Also in March Callahan had a conversation with
Colucci in which Colucci stated that he thought he could get
Callahan back to work at City Welding. When Callahan
expressed the opinion that he should be paid for the time he
was off Colucci said that he would never get that. Callahan
stated that he would be glad to go back to work for the
Company.
" This account of Callahan's discharge interview is based upon his cred-
ited testimony Colucci did not testify. Marinelli, whom I credit only when
corroborated by a credited witness, claimed that Callahan had the worst
record of all of Respondent's employees, that he had been warned consist-
ently about being late for work, a condition which had persisted from
"whenever he started there," and that Callahan had been accused of taking
equipment from the shop. Additionally, Marinelli sought to connect Calla-
han with the slashing of seats and tires of employees' cars. It later developed
that this last incident had occurred prior to Christmas 1969 and was in no
way connected with the Union's organizing campaign, and that there was
no evidence connecting Callahan with the incident. Marinelli claimed that
he had been talking to Colucci for probably a month about discharging
Callahan The discharge took place on February 6. Callahan received a wage
increase on January 10
Callahan was reemployed by the Company on August 12.
At that time, in lurid language , Marinelli expressed the opin-
ion that Callahan had a lot of nerve returning to Respond-
ent's employ and warned that with the first mistake on Cal-
lahan's part he would be discharged again.
On August 21 Marinelli asked Callahan how many men
had attended a union meeting held the night before. Callahan
refused to give Marinelli the desired information.14
I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act by its discharge of Callahan on February 6. Colucci's
question to Genareo on that day indicated that Respondent
had information that Callahan had been compiling the list of
names and addresses for the Union . Further, Marinelli in the
discharge interview stated clearly that he knew of Callahan's
involvement in the organizational campaign and the dis-
charge was effectuated immediately upon Callahan 's admis-
sion of his involvement . It was only after Callahan indicated
that he would fight the discharge that Marinelli switched the
grounds for termination to Callahan 's tardiness in reporting
for work . Callahan admittedly had a record for lateness but
this did not preclude the Company from rehiring him in May
1969 at a substantial raise in pay or from granting him a wage
increase in January 1970. It was only after Callahan took the
lead in contacting the Union and openly assisting the Union
that he was discharged on February 6 in the context of Re-
spondent 's unlawful reaction to the Union 's mailing of cam-
paign literature and authorization cards.
D. Other Acts of Interference,
Coercion, and Restraint
As well as engaging in a campaign to induce its employees
to turn in to it the union authorization cards, the Company's
reaction to the Union 's organizing campaign led to other
violations of the Act.
Thus, on February 6, Joseph Marinelli asked Constant
Evanoski if he knew who had started the union campaign and
who was behind the organizing effort.
During the afternoon of February 11 Walter Korab was
approached by Joseph Marinelli, Colucci , and Marinelli, Sr.
Joe Marinelli asked if Korab had anything to do with the
Union . Korab replied that anything he did was his own busi-
ness. Marinelli, Sr., agreed and the three left. Later that
afternoon the three again came to Korab . Joe Marinelli said
that Korab had been doing a wonderful job and that Colucci
and Marinelli, Sr., agreed . Marinelli said that he had dis-
charged Lengyel and Catterson because they were talking
union" and he asked Korab to keep his nose clean because
Marinelli had enough trouble and didn't want any more.
After work on February 13 Colucci told Korab that he would
hate to lose him because he was a good worker and advised
Korab to keep his nose clean.
William Summerville testified that on or about February 13
Marinelli , Sr., asked if Summerville had been to a union
meeting and if he knew when the next one would be held.
Marinelli, Sr., told Summerville to keep his nose clean and
not to bother with the Union . That same day Joseph Mari-
nelli and Colucci called Summerville aside and said ' that he
had been to a union meeting the night before. When Summer-
ville admitted that he had attended the session they told him
to keep his nose clean and to stay away from union activity.
Later that day Anthony Marinelli, Jr., came to Summerville
with the same advice . About 2:30 p.m. on February 13, Jo-
" I find that Marinelli's question to Callahan not only constituted unlaw-
ful interrogation as to protected employee activity, but as well it created an
impression of surveillance of protected activity.
" Lengyel and Catterson were discharged during the morning of Febru-
ary 13.
130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seph Marinelli and Colucci again came to Summerville. Mari-
nelli was excited. The company president said he was sick and
tired of the union talk in the shop and that if he had to he
would start at the top and fire the first 20 men. Marinelli said
that if it came to it he would close the plant doors. During
this conversation Colucci turned to employee Bucker and
said, "You'd better get out of here, Eddie, and keep your nose
clean or you'll be out the door."
James Burke was approached by Colucci and Joseph Mari-
nelli on February 13 and asked if he had attended the union
meeting the night before. When Burke denied that he had
been there they said that he was lying and that they knew he
was there. They told Burke that someone had told them that
Burke had attended the meeting, who else had been there, and
what had been said and done at the meeting . After Burke
repeated that he had not attended a meeting the night before,
Colucci asked about a meeting on the previous day. Burke
admitted attending that meeting. Marinelli then said that he
could start at the top and lay off 20 men because work was
slow. That same day, Michael Pietro, the purchasing agent,
told Burke that he had heard that Burke had attended the
union meeting, adding, "You know, if the Union gets in, we'd
have to classify you as a laborer. A laborer gets $2.20 an
hour."
Edward Bucker was told by Colucci and Joseph Marinelli
on February 13 that if the Union came in they would cut back
on the hours of work, make it rougher on the employees, and
might even close the plant.
When Clair Catterson was returned to work on February
16 Joseph Marinelli asked if Catterson had signed a union
card. When Catterson admitted that he had, Marinelli asked
Catterson to bring the card in. Marinelli said that he knew
what was going on with respect to union meetings . Marinelli
added that he could not operate with a union and would shut
the doors.
On February 16 Colucci told James Burke that if the Union
came in Burke would be reclassified as a laborer at $2.45 per
hour. That same day Joseph Marinelli repeated to Burke the
statement that Marinelli could start at the top and lay off 20
men if he wished to do so.
On February 19 Colucci came to Burke in the parts room
and told the employee that he knew where Burke was sup-
posed to go that day and for his own sake Burke had better
not go. When Burke asked what Colucci meant, the plant
superintendent replied , "I know there's a meeting today, so
you'd better not be down there."
During the evening of February 20 Marinelli called Sum-
merville at his home and asked him to refrain from union
activity and to stay on Marinelli's side. Summerville said that
he would.
The foregoing recitation of events is based on the uncon-
troverted and credited testimony of the employees involved.
By the foregoing acts I find that the Respondent created the
impression of surveillance of the employees' union activites;
threatened plant closure if the Union 's organizing campaign
succeeded; threatened the employees with loss of employ-
ment and reduction of wages if they selected the Union as
their bargaining representative ; interrogated employees con-
cerning their own union activities and those of fellow em-
ployees; and asked that employees disavow the Union, all in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
E. The Discharge of Albert Lengyel16
Lengyel was employed by Respondent as a welder from
September 9, 1960, until his discharge on February 13, 1970.
Over the course of his employment Lengyel received several
wage increases, the last before his discharge, 10 cents per
hour, coming in either December 1969 or January 1970.
A day or two after Lengyel first learned of the Union's
organizing campaign during a conversation with Callahan,
Callahan asked him to help gather names and addresses of
employees for a union mailing. Lengyel secured about four or
five mailing addresses and passed them on to Callahan.
During the afternoon of February 6 Lengyel, together with
Mariano Simeone, Clair Catterson, and Donald Marcarella,
was called to Michael Pietro's office, shown a union card and
union literature, and asked if that material had been received
in the mail. The assembled employees were told that some
employees were trying to start a union and "he" didn't want
it. The following day Plant Superintendent Colucci ap-
proached Lengyel at work and asked if he had received his
card in the mail. Lengyel answered that he had not and
Colucci walked on.
After a conversation with Harcar, Lengyel advised some of
the employees that they could turn in to the Company the
authorization cards they had received in the mail and that
they would be given replacement cards if they wished.
Lengyel signed a union card on February 9.
On or about February 11 Lengyel gave a number of author-
ization cards to employees Ed Bucker and Louis Napolitano.
When Lengyel received some signed cards from Napolitano,
he went to Callahan's home to turn in the cards. It was on
this occasion that Lengyel met Harcar and Union Represent-
ative Muffler, and the union meeting held that evening in
Harcar's office was arranged. Lengyel made a number of
telephone calls to get men to that meeting.
The following day, February 12, Lengyel, together with
employee Larry Marshall, was called to Joseph Marinelli's
office. Joseph Marinelli told the employees that there was a
lot of trouble in the shop and that they didn't want it. Mari-
nelli spoke of company treatment of the employees and told
the men that he had loaned Callahan $100 and that Callahan
had then turned around and stabbed him in the back. Mari-
nelli asked if they knew anything about a union meeting that
night and asked them to come in and let Respondent know
if they heard anything in the shop. Before they left, Marinelli
told Lengyel and Marshall that they were good workers and
had not caused any trouble.
Shortly after 10 a.m. on February 13, Marinelli and
Colucci came to the trailer where Lengyel and Catterson were
working. Marinelli told Lengyel and Catterson that he was
forced to let them go because of a slowdown in production,
claiming that the yard was full of work. Catterson testified
that there was plenty of work to do at that time. The two
employees were told to leave at once and Colucci stayed with
Catterson and Marinelli accompanied Lengyel until the men
had left the plant. Lengyel and Catterson were the only em-
ployees terminated.
About 11 p.m. on Sunday, February 15, Joseph Marinelli
called Catterson at home. The company president said that
he had been given false information, that he was sorry about
"the whole circumstances," and that he would like Catterson
to return to work. Catterson refused to return unless he re-
ceived the $3 per hour he had been promised when first
employed. Catterson got the $3. In this telephone conversa-
tion Marinelli said that he wanted no more union talk or
16 Unless otherwise noted the facts as to Lengyel's case are based on his
largely unrebutted and credited testimony.
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 131
activity and there was a verbal agreement between Marinelli
and Catterson that the latter would refrain from such activity
if he returned to work."
Marinelli testified that he discharged Lengyel because Len-
gyel was roaming around from department to department on
company time. Marinelli could not recall when it was that
Colucci had told him about Lengyel's wandering through the
plant or whether he had spoken to Lengyel about the matter
before the discharge. Marinelli testified that he wasn't sure
whether Lengyel had engaged in union activity. However, in
his pretrial affidavit Marinelli stated that he laid off Lengyel
and Catterson because he "had heard from some now forgot-
ten employees that both these had talked union and passed
cards on company time and also because business was slow.
I was later told that Catterson had not been involved on
company time and I called him back."
Keyman Patsy Circelli, called as a witness by Respondent,
testified that Lengyel is in his department, that during the
previous year no one in the department had spent a lot of time
wandering around the factory rather than staying on the job,
and that Lengyel did not spend more time wandering around
the plant than did other employees.
Thus, Circelli, Respondnet' s witness, gives the lie to the
Company's proffered reason for Lengyel's discharge. Undis-
turbed, however, is the fact that prior to his discharge Re-
spondent was aware of Lengyel' s union activity. "In the con-
text of respondent's antiunion animus ... the inference ... of
discriminatory motivation is sustained and is buttressed by
the fact that the explanation of the layoffs failed to stand
under scrutiny." N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307
F.2d 275, 278 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Bird Machine Company,
161 F.2d 589, 592 (C.A. 1). In the context of Respondent's
antiunion campaign, its efforts to ascertain the identity of the
employees involved in the mailing of the Union' s materials
and the union meeting of February 11, Marinelli's acknowl-
edgment of the Company's awareness of Lengyel's union ac-
tivity, the reemployment of Catterson on February 15 when
Respondent was disabused of "false information" and the
deal that Catterson would refrain from union activity if he
was returned to work, and the failure of Respondent's expla-
nation for Lengyel's termination to stand up under scrutiny,
I find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by its discharge of Lengyel on February 13.
F. The Events of dune 22
On June 19, following receipt of a number of authorization
cards which he concluded had given the Union majority
status, Harcar demanded recognition from the Company.
This notice went by certified mail and the return receipt,
dated June 20, was signed by Joseph Marinelli.
On June 22 Marinelli went from department to department
asking the men if they had heard anything about the Union
and union cards. Among those questioned were Clair Catter-
son and Tony Fundoots.11 William Summerville testified that
Marinelli came to him at or about 11:30 a.m. and asked if
Summerville had heard anything about the Union or if he had
seen any cards being signed in the shop. Marinelli told Frank
Genareo that he had cards in the office and that he wanted
Genareo to sign one. Marinelli explained that these cards
were for him and not for the Union. Genareo testified that
Marinelli left him and spoke to other employees.
1' The foregoing account of the circumstances surrounding Catterson's
reemployment on February 15 is based on Catterson's unrebutted and cred-
ited testimony
11 Testimony of Catterson.
At lunch on June 22 a group of employees, including Wal-
ter Kdr'ab, Robert Jones, William Summerville, and Clair
Catterson, discussed the situation in the shop. Korab was of
the opinion that the men were acting like a bunch of kids and
suggested that when they returned to work a group go in and
talk to Joe Marinelli. Pursuant to Korab's suggestion the four
men went to Marinelli's office following lunch. Jones acting
as spokesman told Marinelli that a majority of the men had
signed cards for the Union and told the company president
that they wanted to discuss this with him." Marinelli told the
men to forget about the Union, that there would be no union
in his shop, he would run the shop his way, and before a union
came in he would close the plant doors.
Korab testified that the walkout June 22 came after he saw
Marinelli walking through the shop following his meeting
with the four employees. Korab told Summerville that he
intended to walk out; the two clocked out and with about 20
other men who joined them walked to a parking lot across the
street from the plant.
Marinelli came to the parking lot and as he was asking
where their majority was another 25 to 30 men left the plant
and joined the strikers. A discussion followed between Mari-
nelli, who had been joined by Colucci, Korab, and the other
strikers. Marinelli suggested that he post some proposals on
the bulletin board and that the men could vote on what they
wanted. Among the matters that would be posted and which
were discussed on the parking lot at this point were a pension
plan, compulsory Saturday overtime, time and a half after 8
hours of work in a day, and wages. Catterson recalled that
Marinelli said the men could get a committee or some kind
of an organization. Korab stated that he didn't think things
were being done right and that he thought the men should
have someone there to represent them, suggesting that Har-
car be called. Marinelli told Korab to forget about the Union.
While this general discussion was going on Harcar was
called and he asked that the men go to a hall adjacent to the
plant and that he would meet with them there.
Harcar met with the employees on the parking lot of the
C & A Hall next to the company plant. Harcar read to the
men the letter demanding recognition which he had mailed
on June 19 and told the men that he did not think the walkout
was the best course of action because Marinelli had not yet
replied to the demand. Harcar advised the men to go back to
work. Some employees said that they had all been fired, but
Harcar told them to report to Marinelli that they were ready
to go back to work.
Some men signed union authorization cards during the
meeting on the C & A parking lot.
When the men arrived at the plant entrace they were met
by Marinelli, his father, Colucci, two company salesmen, and
the Hallowich brothers. Marinelli was telling the men to line
up in two places depending on whether they were for him or
the Union when Harcar interrupted. Harcar asked if Mari-
nelli had received the Union's demand for recognition and
whether he would agree to a card check. Marinelli replied
that he would not agree to a card check, that he felt like firing
all the employees who had walked out, and that the men had
no right to walk out. Harcar agreed that the walkout proba-
bly wouldn't solve anything but that the men should be re-
turned to work. A discussion followed in which Marinelli
restated his position on recognizing the Union, his intention
to close the plant first, and his feeling that the plant had
grown too large and that he could make more money with less
men. Marinelli stated that those who had led the walkout
were fired, naming Korab, Jones, Summerville , Catterson,
11 Marinelli corroborated the account of this meeting in his office as
testified to by Korab, Catterson, and Summerville.
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Genareo . After Harcar and Marinelli argued about the
firing of these men Korab joined in saying that there was no
use "standing out here and arguing like a bunch of jackasses."
Korab asked that Marinelli either let the men go back to work
and talk to their representatives or else send the men home.
At that point Johnson , a company salesman , took Marinelli
aside and after they had spoken Marinelli said that all the
men could go back to work , that he needed time to think and
would contact Harcar later . The men went into work and
Harcar left about 3:30 p.m. During the discussion between
Harcar and Marinelli the men were standing around them in
a semicircle.
After the men were back in the shop Colucci called them
to the lower end of the shop , saying that Joe Marinelli wanted
to talk to them . 20 Instead of Marinelli , Salesman Johnson
addressed the employees . Johnson told the employees of his
many years of experience with unions . He told the men that
the Company was the only place in town that permitted its
employees to work as many hours as they wished and that if
the Union came in Marinelli might have to lay off men or cut
the hours . Johnson pointed out that many of the men were
in debt with bills to pay and that if the Union came in and
there was a strike they could lose everything they had worked
so hard to get. Curtis Crill testified that after Johnson spoke
Marinelli told the employees to get three men to represent
them on a Grievance Committee and that they could have
a vote the next day.
About 4 p .m. on June 22 Catterson heard that there would
be a vote before the men went home that day and that they
were not to clock out.
Some 40 minutes after he had left City Welding Harcar
received a call from Joe Marinelli . The company president
said that he wanted an election at quitting time and asked
Harcar to come out to the plant. Harcar agreed to come to
the plant but did not go along with the idea of an election
then . When Harcar arrived at the plant he found the em-
ployees lined up at the door . Marinelli told Harcar that the
men were all ready to vote . Harcar said he wanted to discuss
the matter with Marinelli . The two went to Marinelli 's office
where they were joined by Colucci and Marinelli, Sr. Harcar
again asked Marinelli to agree to a card check, adding that
if the Union had a majority they could probably reach an
agreement without a work stoppage. At Marinelli 's request
Harcar read to him the Union's model recognition agreement
form . Marinelli insisted on an election but Harcar demurred,
asking at this point who Marinelli intended to have vote in
such an election . Marinelli replied "all of the employees,"
agreeing to exclude the office workers but insisting that
Colucci was the only supervisor in the plant and that the
keymen were eligible to vote. Marinelli explained that the
men would vote by signing one of two pieces of paper. One
of the sheets would be headed by Marinelli's name, the other
by Harcar's. Harcar replied that this was not a secret ballot
and that he could not agree to any vote on those terms.
At this point Ed Hallowich came in and said that the
employees wanted to go home if they were not going to vote.
Marinelli told Hallowich to tell the employees that there
would be no vote that day. Harcar asked to speak to the
employees before they left.
Harcar told the employees that there was not going to be
an election that day and that if there ever was to be an election
in the plant it would be conducted by the NLRB with prior
notice to the employees , a secret ballot in a closed voting
booth , and that Harcar would not be permitted on the prem-
ises during the balloting. The union agent advised the men to
20 Curtis Crill was told to go to this meeting by Ed Hallowich
go home and to report for work at their regular time the next
morning.
During the evening of June 22 Harcar received calls from
Korab, Catterson , Summerville , and Jones advising him that
they had been discharged by Marinelli for agitating a strike
and instigating a walkout at the plant.
Korab testified that Marinelli called him about 10:45 p.m.
and said that he would have to let Korab go. When Korab
asked why, Marinelli replied , "Walt, you know you're one of
the instigators that caused this wildcat strike-this walkout
and I 'm afraid I'm going to have to let you go."
Catterson was called about the same time and when he
asked why he was being fired Marinelli replied that it was for
instigating a walkout. Summerville was told by Marinelli that
he was fired for instigating a wildcat strike and for wanting
to organize a union at City Welding.
Harcar called Marinelli about midnight and asked him to
reconsider his discharge of the four employees . Harcar
pointed out that all the employees had participated in the
walkout and that the discharges would only lead to more
disruption . Marinelli insisted that he had chosen the course
of action he wished to follow , that he would reconsider based
on Harcar's request, but that he thought the actions would
stand.
At the hearing the Company admitted that the employees
were discharged because they engaged in a work stoppage or
strike. The cases are legion that participation in a work stop-
page or strike is a protected concerted activity and that dis-
charge for such action is a violation of the Act.21 The walkout
on June 22 came about , in Curtis Crill's words , because he
"thought by doing so, we could get recognition for a card
check for the Union ." The discharge of Korab, Summerville,
Catterson , and Jones on June 22 because they instigated and
participated in the strike violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.22
G. The Events of June 23
Following the call from Marinelli advising him that he had
been discharged , William Summerville called Randy Rubeis
and asked that Rubeis not go into work the next morning
until the four discharged employees were also permitted to
work. Rubeis agreed to do so.
The next morning, June 23, the four dischargees , joined by
a number of other employees , picketed the plant with home-
made signs . Among the slogans on the placards were: "City
Welding will not recognize the Union " and "Let 's all be
brothers and join the Union ." After a time all but eight men,
the four dischargees and Randy Rubeis, Joe Todd, Donald
Macarella, and Frank Genareo, went into work in the plant.
Paul Harcar was there at Catterson 's request to be a witness
when Catterson asked Marinelli to repeat the reasons for the
terminations.
Catterson and Harcar spoke to Marinelli and asked him to
repeat what he had said on the telephone the night before.
Marinelli stated , "I told you that you were being fired for
agitating and instigating a walkout at the plant yesterday."
Catterson denied having been one of the leaders in the walk-
out although he had joined the demonstration . Marinelli re-
plied , "I knew you guys was going to make a mistake and
that's what I was waiting on. You made your mistake when
you walked out that door." Marinelli then pointed across the
street and said that the men there were fired.
" See Sec. 13 of the Act.
12 See Hartford Fazence Company, 183 NLRB No. 42
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 133
Marinelli testified that six or eight of the men stood out in
the street and he replaced them with other men in the shop.
As with the four employees discharged on June 22, at the
hearing the Company admitted that on June 23 it had dis-
charged Frank Genareo, Joseph Todd, Randy Rubeis, and
Donald Macarella "because they engaged in a work stoppage
or strike." As with the Respondent's actions on June 22, I
find that the termination of the four named employees on
June 23 was in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
H. The Employees Grievance Committee
The first suggestion for an employee committee came from
Joe Marinelli on June 22 during the walkout when he spoke
to the men and suggested that he could post some proposals
concerning their demands and that the employees could vote
on those matters.23
At the meeting of the employees in the plant called by
Respondent following the return to work from the walkout,
Marinelli told the employees that they should form a Griev-
ance Committee by splitting the shop into three sections.
Marinelli said there would be a vote the next day.24
On June 23 Plant Superintendent Colucci went through the
factory arranging for the election of committeemen which
was held during the 2:30 p.m. break. In his rounds Colucci
came to the fabrication department and said that three griev-
ance men would be selected by a vote that day in the three
sections into which the shop had been divided.
Colucci came to the parts room and told James Burke there
would be a vote to select a three-man Grievance Committee.
Burke was told to go to the flatbed department at his 2:30
p.m. break to vote.
In the flatbed department the voting was conducted by Ed
Hallowich who handed each man a blank piece of paper on
which to write his choice for committee member. Hallowich
did not vote after announcing that foremen were ineligible to
cast ballots. Hallowich collected and counted the completed
ballots.
Colucci announced the winners: Constant Evanoski, Tim
Burns, and Larry Marshall. James Burke testified that after
the voting he observed David Hallowich, keyman in the ser-
vice department, post a notice on the bulletin board signed by
the three committeemen to the effect that they would be
holding a meeting.
Following the election Evanoski met with Joe Marinelli
and asked what Marinelli wanted the Employees Grievance
Committee to do. Marinelli said that they would get together
and later that day the three committeemen met with Mari-
nelli for a discussion on how the Committee was to function.
Thereafter, the Committee met with Marinelli at least five
times and negotiated wage rates for the employees. As well,
Marinelli and the Committee discussed such other matters as
a pension plan, overtime, and vacations.
Evanoski testified that there was no document prepared
describing the Committee although the committeemen
defined its purposes to the men in the plant.
The Committee collected no dues and had no expenses.
As to employee membership in the Committee the follow-
ing exchange took place while Evanoski was testifying:
Q. Are there any employees who are members of this
Committee?
1' Based on the credited testimony of Clair Catterson and Raymond
Attisano. Larry Marshall testified that employee Tony Angelo brought up
the idea of a grievance committee. I do not credit Marshall. Further, Angelo
testified but did not claim to have fathered the idea.
11 Testimony of Attisano and Curtis Crill.
A. Yes.
Q. Are all the employees members of this Committee?
A. Yes, they're all for it.
Q. When a new employee is employed at City Weld-
ing, how does he obtain membership in this Grievance
Committee?
A. He would be automatically-I don't know.-au-
tomatically, you know, member.
Although the Committee discussed vacations, pensions,
overtime pay, and compulsory Saturday overtime, as well as
wages with Marinelli, there is no evidence that there was
agreement on any issue other than wages. There is no evi-
dence that a collective-bargaining agreement was ever con-
summated between the Committee and Respondent.
Larry Marshall testified that the Committee decided to
stop holding meetings when the trial in this case came up.
In a case2' where the facts were strikingly similar to those
in this proceeding the Board held:
Where, as here, the Respondent-initiated Committee
had no discernible resources, collected no dues, had no
constitution or bylaws, had not consummated a collec-
tive-bargaining contract, and structurally was under Re-
spondent's implicit power to control its composition and
to some extent control the conduct of its meetings, we
find the conclusion inescapable that Respondent domi-
nated the Committee.'
' K & M Machine Company, 162 NLRB 83, see also Hydraulic
Accessories Company, 165 NLRB 864.
Respondent conceded that it "promoted" the Committee but
denied that it initiated or dominated the employee representa-
tive agent. It is the very fact of Respondent's initiation, pro-
motion, and domination of the Committee which removes
this case from the ambit of that line of cases holding that an
employer's recognition of one of two competing labor organi-
zations is a violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Here, there
was one labor organization, the Union, seeking to represent
the employees. In the face of that demand the Respondent
initiated the idea of, promoted the organization of, and solely
determined the structure and composition of the Committee.
What the Respondent has done is to make "it mandatory, and
in effect a condition of employment, that any collective bar-
gaining that there might be must follow certain procedures,
with Respondent deciding who should be the spokesmen for
the employees.... " Walton Manufacturing Company, 126
NLRB 697, 700, enfd. 289 F.2d 177 (C.A. 5). " ... Respond-
ent violated [the Act] by imposing a committee of its own
creation upon its employees as their collective-bargaining
representative for any collective bargaining which they might
wish to engage in, and thereby interfering with their rights to
self-organization and to bargain through representatives of
their own choosing." Walton Manufacturing, supra, 701.26
Tuscarora Plastics Co., 167 NLRB 1059, 1060.
ii During the walkout on June 22 Marinelli offered to post proposals
about various items of employment conditions, including wages After the
Company promoted and initiated the Committee it was Marinelli who deter-
mined the agenda for negotiations. That wages were high on his agenda is
evidenced by the short time between formation of the Committee on June
23 and payment of the wage increase on July 2. During that period Marinelli
asked what the Committee thought the men wanted, wages of competitive
employers were investigated and Marinelli agreed to the wage increase.
Under these circumstances it can be inferred that Respondent "was moti-
vated by a desire to chill the employees' interest in union representation, and
it is so found . But even assuming that such was not Respondent's motiva-
tion, the circumstances under which the ... wage increases were given rea-
sonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to be represented by the Union, and therefore, the
Respondent thereby engaged in further violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act [Footnote omitted ]" K & MMachine Company, Inc., 162 NLRB 83,
92.
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Demands for Recognition
On June 19, by certified mail, return receipt requested,
Harcar sent the following request for recognition to Respond-
ent:
This is to advise you that District 106 of the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, represents a majority of your employees
in a bargaining unit consisting of all production and
maintenance employees, excluding office clerical and
professional employees, watchmen, guards and all super-
visors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act as
amended. You are to consider this a continuing request
for recognition as collective bargaining representative
for employees included in the unit described.
You are further advised that we are prepared to fur-
nish proof to you, through some . mutually agreed on
impartial third party such as a member of the State or
Federal Mediation Service, a Minister, Rabbi, Priest,
that we actually do, in fact, represent a majority of the
employees referred to above.
In view of this we are herewith requesting recognition
and collective bargaining rights on behalf of the em-
ployees as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
agency in all matters pertaining to wages, rates of pay,
hours of work and all other conditions of employment.
The Union is prepared to meet with you at your con-
venience to discuss these matters and to negotiate a col-
lective bargaining agreement . You may contact the
writer at the address listed above or by telephoning 658-
8611 or 654-1334.
The return receipt for this letter is dated June 22 and signed
by Joseph Marinelli.
Twice on June 22 Harcar orally requested Marinelli to
afford recognition to the Union. The first demand came after
the men had offered to return to work but before Marinelli
had agreed that they could do so. At that time Harcar asked
Marinelli if he had received the Union's demand for recogn i-
tion and whether he would agree to a card check. Marinelli
refused to submit to a card check, restated his position on
recognizing the Union, that he would close the plant first and
that he could make more money with fewer employees.
Later that same day, after Marinelli had asked Harcar to
return to City Welding so that an election could be con-
ducted, Harcar repeated his request that the Company go to
a card check. At Marinelli's request Harcar read the Union's
model recognition agreement form. Marinelli insisted on an
election and they then discussed which employees would be
eligible to vote. Marinelli agreed to exclude office workers but
he and Harcar disagreed on the number and identity of the
plant supervisors.
I find that the Union's letter of June 19 and Harcar's oral
requests on June 22 constituted valid demands on the Com-
pany for recognition and bargaining. Barney 's Supercenter,
Inc., 128 NLRB 1325, enfd. 296 F.2d 91 (C.A. 3).
J. The Union's Majority
At the hearing the General Counsel introduced into evi-
dence 36 cards signed by employees authorizing the Union to
represent them. The card read as follows:
YES, I WANT THE IAM
I, the undersigned employee of (Com-
pany) authorize the International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) to act as my
collective bargaining agent for wages, hours and work-
ing conditions. I agree that this card may be used either
to support a demand for recognition or an NLRB elec-
tion, at the discretion of the union.
The Supreme Courtin N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395
U.S. 575, 606-607, resolved the then-existing conflict among
the circuits in favor of approving the Board's Cumberland
rule27 as to the validity of authorization cards. As set forth by
the Court in Gissel Packing28 the Cumberland rule provides
as follows:
[I]f the card itself is unambiguous (i.e., states on its face
that the signer authorizes the Union to represent the
employee for collective bargaining purposes and not to
seek an election), it will be counted unless it is proved
that the employee was told that the card was to be used
solely for the purpose of obtaining- an election.
The Union's card meets the test of unambiguity stating on
its face that the signer authorizes the IAM to act as his
collective-bargaining agent for wages, hours, and working
conditions."
As to certain of the cards offered in evidence to support the
Union's majority there was testimony offered, in most cases
by the employee who had signed the card, as to statements
made before or at the time the card was signed which might,
if credited, vitiate the value of the authorization. There were
a number of employees who sought to establish that their
signatures were obtained by the solicitors' statements that the
cards would be used to obtain an election and/or that the
Union had already achieved a majority. In most instances, as
more fully explored below, after these witnesses had fully
testified it became apparent that the facts surrounding the
execution of their authorizations did not match the eager
assertion that the magic words "election" and "majority" had
been used to secure their signatures. In part I attribute the
confused state of this testimony to an honest ignorance on the
part of some of the witnesses as to the differences in fact
between an election and a card check. However, as to most
of the testimony of this nature, I am constrained to conclude
that the explanation is to be found in the Court's observation
"that employees are more likely than not, many months after
a card drive and in response to questions by company coun-
sel, to give testimony damaging to the union , particularly
where company officials have previously threatened [and car-
ried out] reprisals for union activity in violation of [the Act]."
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 608.
Of the 36 cards received in evidence, 16 in number are
unaffected by any testimony affecting their validity as unam-
biguous authorizations for the Union to represent the em-
ployees signing those cards. These cards were signed by:
Raymond M. Attisano Albert Lengyel
Edward J. Bucker Donald F. Marcarella
James Burke Jerry Maggie
Edward Callahan Jerry Passerrello
Clair M. Catterson Randall R. Rubeis
Curtis Crill Mariano Simeone
Frank J. Genareo William L. Summerville
Walter Korab StanleyWalczak
On a chart listing the names of employees who signed
union cards," I have indicated the date on which the cards
were signed and whether each card operated as a valid desig-
Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 NLRB 1268.
395 U.S 575, 584.
29 Although the cards in this proceeding provided that the signer agreed
that the "card may be used either to support a demand for recognition or
an NLRB election, at the discretion of the union," there is no problem
presented of a dual-purpose card. Following the Court's holding in Gissel
Packing at page 606, I find that these were "single-purpose cards, stating
clearly and unambiguously on their face that the signer designated the union
as his representative."
30 Appendix B.
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
nation of the Union on the 2 days on which demands were
made, June 19 by certified mail and June 22 in Harcar's
conversations with Joe Marinelli.
As to the remaining 20 cards there was testimony which
must be evaluated before determining whether those cards
may go to establish the Union's majority.
Constant Evanoski III, Albert E. Reno,
Donald Haben, and Joseph J. Tuscano
Haben signed his union card on June 18. Evanoski, Reno,
and Tuscano executed their union authorizations on June 19.
At or about the time each was asked to sign for the Union
he was told that the Union had already achieved majority
status among the employees. Thus, Haben and Reno were
told by Walter Korab that 60 percent or more of the em-
ployees had already signed. Evanoski was told that a good
percentage, more than half the people, had already signed up.
Korab told Tuscano that he was trying to get the Union in
and a majority of the men had signed.
There is no evidence "that [the] employees ... did not
want the Union when they signed their cards, or that they
were tricked into signing because they thought the Union
already was the exclusive representative even without their
cards." Marie Phillips, Inc., 178 NLRB No. 53, enfd. 443
F.2d 667 (C.A.D.C.). None of the four employees in any way
indicated that he had signed the card in reliance on the repre-
sentation that a majority had already been secured. Thus, I
find that there is no evidence that these union authorizations
were obtained as a result of misrepresentation and conclude
that they are valid authorizations.
Anthony Angelo
Angelo, employed by Respondent for some 2% years and
one of the most senior men in the flatbed department, signed
a union card on June 18. He received the card from Anthony
Fundoots. Angelo, now a member of the Employees Griev-
ance Committee, who, in his own words, does "most of the
talking" and in August was the spokesman when a group of
employees brought a petition to the Board's Regional Office
seeking an election, touched all bases in an effort to repudiate
his card. Angelo testified that he had been told that a majority
of the men had already signed and he was one of the last
unsigned; that he was fearful of what would happen if the
men found out that he had not signed a card; that he thought
the card was for an election; that he had not read the card
before signing and indeed had told Fundoots that he did not
want to read it; and that he signed because he was fearful of
violence because there had been slashing of tires and car seats.
It developed that the statements concerning majority were
allegedly made to Angelo by Summerville earlier in the day.
As to the violence and tire and seat slashing, the testimony
of David Duddy established that this had taken place in
December 1969 and was unconnected with the Union's or-
ganizing campaign . 31 However, Angelo's statement that he
had announced to Fundoots when he signed the card that he
was doing so because of the violence stands unrebutted on the
record. On the other hand, I "also note that [Angelo's] tes-
timony was uncorroborated and was adduced after Respond-
ent had engaged in unlawful conduct which had the inherent
tendency of causing employees to believe, after having signed
the cards, that their interests would be best served by re-
nouncing the Union and reestablishing themselves in Re-
spondent's good graces." Marie Phillips, Inc., 178 NLRB No.
53, footnote 6, enfd. 443 F.2d 667 (C.A.D.C.). In Angelo's
" Joe Marinelli had attempted to connect the discharge of Callahan with
the same incidents referred to by Angelo.
135
case his testimony stands undisturbed, either by rebutting
witnesses or, as was true in the case of a number of employees,
by inconsistencies in his own account of the event. Accord-
ingly, I shall not count Angelo's card in determining the
Union's majority status.
Anthony Antuono
Antuono testified that he received a card from Summerville
and after filling in and signing the authorization he returned
it to Summerville on June 18.
Antuono first testified that he had been told by Summer-
ville that a majority of the men had signed. This statement
was allegedly made before the card was signed but not at the
time Summerville gave the card to Antuono. Thereafter, An-
tuono attributed to Summerville the following statement,
"The majority of the guys, you know, we have most of the
majority except for about, you know, five or six." Later An-
tuono testified that Summerville had said that if Antuono and
a few others would sign they would have a majority. Finally,
Antuono was asked:
Q. But did he tell you that he already had a majority?
A. No, he didn't say that. If they already had it, why
would they want me to sign if they already had it.
I find that Antuono's unambiguous authorization of the
Union to act as his bargaining agent is untainted by any
misrepresentation.
Timothy Bums
Paul Harcar credibly testified that he solicited a card from
Burns on February 16 at the employee's home. Harcar stated
that he told Burns the card could be used in two ways, either
to support a demand for recognition or for a Board-con-
ducted election.
When shown his union card at the hearing Burns testified
"That's the cards we signed for the election, for the Union."
Bums testified that Harcar had said the Union needed 30
percent of the cards for an election and that they were only
a few cards short of the required amount. Burns testified that
before he signed the card Harcar had told him that he wanted
to get people signed up for an election.
Harcar denied using the figure of 30 percent in the conver-
sation, claiming that in reference to an election petition he
used the figure 60 percent because he had written instructions
from the Union that a petition could not be filed unless sup-
ported by a 60-percent showing of interest. Those written
instructions were produced at the hearing.
Throughout his several appearances on the stand I found
Harcar to be a credible witness who was corroborated in most
major respects by equally credible witnesses . I credit his tes-
timony as to his conversation with Bums on February 16
when he solicited a union card from the employee and find
that Burns was not induced to sign the card by assurances
that it would be used to support a petition for an election. I
find that Burns' card is a valid unambiguous designation of
the Union to be his bargaining agent.32
Steve DeGennaro
At the time of his appearance as a witness in this proceed-
ing DeGennaro had been in the United States I5% months
and employed by Respondent for 15 months. DeGennaro, a
native of Italy, testified with the assistance of an interpreter.
32 In evaluating Burns' testimony I note that he testified to a conversation
between Glenn Tanner and Summerville on June 22 whereas Tanner made
no reference to the alleged discussion during his appearance as a witness.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DeGennaro's card is dated June 22, the day of the walkout.
DeGennaro testified that he walked out with everyone else
and signed the card because he was asked to do so. DeGen-
naro testified that he did not read the card, does not know
what a union is, and did not belong to a union in Italy. There
is no evidence that DeGennaro was aware of what he was
doing when he signed the card , no evidence that he was
capable of reading the card, no evidence that anyone ex-
plained the card to him before he signed it, and I find there-
fore that the card does not constitute a valid designation of
the Union to act as his bargaining agent.
James V. DeRosa
DeRosa signed his card for the Union at the meeting at
Harcar's office on February 11. DeRosa first testified that
someone at the meeting had asked what the card signing was
leading to and that Harcar replied, "It's going to lead to an
election."
Subsequently DeRosa was asked the following questions
and he replied:
Q. Mr. DeRosa, do you recall any conversation about
a rabbi or a priest at that meeting?
A. Right; there was.
Q. You do?
A. Right.
Q. Do you recall what was said about a rabbi or a
priest?
A. After that there question, what does it lead to, they
said-Paul said-Mr. Harcar said we'd have this here
card signing verified by a priest or mayor or Your
Honor, you know, someone that can be trusted to prove
that these here cards were signed. That was said; Paul
did say that.
I find the DeRosa should be numbered among those who
were confused as to the meaning of an election or a card
check, but that in any event he was not induced to sign his
designation of the Union to be his bargaining agent by any
misrepresentation as to the use the Union would make of the
card.
David Duddy
Duddy filled out and signed his union card on February 20
at Walter Korab's home.
Duddy testified on cross-examination that he had not read
the card before signing it and that Korab had said the card
was for an election. Respondent's counsel then led Duddy
through a line of questioning in which Duddy testified that
he had received a telephone call threatening that he would
have his "head kicked in" if he did not sign a union card and
that the seats in his car had been cut before he signed the card.
Duddy further testified that employees Albert Reno's and
Burns' tires had been slashed. It subsequently developed that
these incidents had taken place around Christmas time 1969,
over a month before the Union's organizing campaign began
and at a time when unrelated employee petitions were being
circulated in the plant. As to the telephone call, Duddy did
not know who had made it. From my observation of Duddy
while testifying and the confused state of his testimony, I do
not credit his assertion that he had not read the card before
signing and had relied on Korab's statement that the card was
for an election. Rather, I conclude that as stated on the face
of the card Duddy was unambiguously designating the Union
to be his bargaining representative and I shall include his card
in computation of the Union's majority status.
Harold R. Forkey, Jr.
Harold Forkey signed a union card on June 18. Korab told
Forkey that the card would be used for "a card check." At
the time he signed the card Summerville and Korab told
Forkey "that all they needed was ten more guys and they
would have it."
Harold Forkey's card is a valid designation of the Union
to be his collective-bargaining agent.
Raymond L. Forkey
Raymond Forkey signed a union card on June 18 at Wil-
liam Summerville's behest. Forkey testified that Summerville
told him he needed one more card and asked Forkey to sign
it. The questions and answers were as follows:
Q. [By Respondent's counsel] Did Mr. Summerville
say anything to you about the majority of the people
already having signed it?
A. [Ray Forkey] Yes.
Q. What did he say?
A. He told me that he needed one more card signed.
Q. He needed one more card signed?
A. One more card signed.
Q. But not one more card signed for what purpose?
A. He didn't explain.
The only indication in the record that Summerville men-
tioned the word "majority" to Ray Forkey was in counsel's
leading question. I find that Ray Forkey's card is a valid
designation of the Union to be his collective-bargaining agent.
Anthony Fundoots
Paul Harcar testified that on June 17, together with Ed-
ward Callahan, he went to Fundoots' home to solicit for the
Union. Harcar asked Fundoots if he would be interested in
signing a card. Fundoots turned on the porch light so that he
could read the card. Harcar teatified that he explained that
the card could be used to support a demand for recognition
or for an election. Harcar explained that a card check would
be conducted by a rabbi, priest, or Federal or state mediator
who, as an impartial third party, would check the cards to see
if the Union had a majority. Harcar told Fundoots that when
the Union had a majority among the employees they would
write a letter to Marinelli requesting recognition.
Anthony Angelo testified that he received the union card
which he signed from Fundoots on June 18 and after signing
the card he returned it to Fundoots.
Later on June 18 Fundoots accompanied Summerville and
Jones to Harcar 's office at which time Summerville delivered
a number of signed authorization cards to the union agent.
At that time Harcar said that with the cards then delivered
the Union had a majority and he would send a letter demand-
ing recognition.
Fundoots touched all the bases in seeking to repudiate his
card." Fundoots maintained that Harcar said he had a
majority of the cards signed, that they were for an election,
and that he had signed at his wife's request because "she was
scared. She had experienced stuff like this before. So I signed
the card; that was it."
As Fundoots testified it developed that Harcar had told
him there "would be a priest or rabbi there in case anybody
questioned how many cards they had for an election, to
verify." Fundoots thus corroborated Harcar's testimony that
he had spoken to Fundoots about a card check and had
explained the procedure to him. On the subject of a
" Asked at the hearing to identify his card, Fundoots rephed, "It's a
crummy card, that's what it is."
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
"majority," as Fundoots remained on the witness stand, he
explained that Harcar had said he had "almost a majority."
At a later point Fundoots admitted that Harcar had "said he
needed a couple of cards for the majority." Finally, as to his
wife's fears, Fundoots explained that he had been telling her
about men getting their tires slashed and seats cut. These
incidents had occurred in December 1969. Fundoots' card is
dated June 18. Fundoots' claim that he signed the card on
June 18 to calm his wife's fear of violence if he did not do so
is belied by his solicitation of Angelo for the Union on June
19 and his visit to the union office that day with Summerville
and Jones to deliver additional signed authorization cards. I
do not credit Fundoots' testimony. I credit Harcar's version
of the events surrounding Fundoots' signing a union card and
find that his card is a valid designation of the Union to serve
as his bargaining agent.
Robert R. Jones
Jones signed his union card on June 18. He could not recall
who had given him the card because at the time he and a
group of some eight men were in a cafe drinking and eating
lunch and cards were changing hands at the table. There was
a discussion at the table about the fact that a majority of the
employees had already signed cards and someone said, "We
have over half, now."
Jones was one of the four men who went to Marinelli on
June 22, advised him that the Union represented a majority
of the employees, and asked for discussions. Subsequently,
Jones was among those unlawfully discharged for instigating
a walkout. This postsigning conduct buttresses a finding that
Jones wanted the Union when he signed the card and was not
induced to sign by misrepresentation.
Larry D. Marshall
Marshall signed his union card on February 6. Marshall
testified that he had received the card from either Callahan
or DeRosa and that there were a lot of people passing out
cards at the time. When he was given the card, Marshall
testified, the solicitor "said he talked to somebody about-the
Union representative about getting the Union in and the
Union was going to give him some cards to come down and
have the men sign. And if a majority of the men sign the
cards, he said we can have an election to vote the Union in
there." Marshall testified that he held the card for a time and
then gave it to either Callahan or DeRosa. Harcar's coding
symbol on Marshall's card indicates that the Union received
the signed card in the mail.
Callahan denied giving a card to Marshall, stating that
prior to his discharge the only employee to whom he gave a
card was Lengyel. Further, the only employees in the shop
with cards were Lengyel and Callahan. Callahan testified that
a day or two after his discharge on February 6 he went to
Marshall's home and asked if he had signed a card. Marshall
replied that he had signed the card he had received in the mail
and had returned it. Marshall's name appears on the mailing
list Callahan had prepared and given to Harcar.
I do not credit Marshall, one of the three committeemen
of the Employees Grievance Committee. There is no evidence
to support his statement that there were a lot of cards floating
around the shop on February 6. Rather, that was the day that
the Union's mailing was received and Respondent launched
its campaign to have the employees turn in the cards they
received in the mail. Accordingly, I find that Marshall's card
is a valid authorization for the Union to be his collective-
bargaining agent according to the unambiguous terms of the
card.
137
Louis Napolitano
Napolitano had been in the United States 16 months at the
time of the hearing herein and has been employed by Re-
spondent for approximately the same length of time.
Napolitano signed the card introduced into evidence on
March 6 in Harcar's office." Napolitano had signed a card in
February which had been turned in to the Union.
On February 23 Frank DuBois, a foreman and nephew of
Joe Marinelli, came to the union office with Napolitano and
Michele Schettino, another Italian-speaking employee.
DuBois told Harcar--that he had been told by Marinelli to
bring the two employees to the union office to have their
union cards returned to them.
On February 24 Joe Marinelli himself came to the union
office with Napolitano and Schettino. Marinelli said he was
there to see that the employees got their cards back. On that
occasion there was an Italian-speaking member of the Union
present but he could not speak the particular dialect which
the two Italian workers spoke, so Harcar asked them to re-
turn at a time when he could question them with no company
representative present.
Napolitano returned to Harcar's office on March 6 but
Schettino did not accompany him. Present at the union office
was Andrew DiLorenzo, an Italian-speaking member of the
Union. On this occasion Napolitano asked for his own and
Schettino's cards. Napolitano's first card was returned to him
and he destroyed it. Napolitano first testified that he signed
the second card because he was afraid that if he did not do
so he would not get his first card back. Thereafter,
Napolitano testified that he signed the second card after he
had been given his first card and he had destroyed it. As to
the card itself Napolitano testified that he understood the
card entitled him to belong to the Union but that he was not
told what the Union would do with the card. Asked about
what DiLorenzo had said to him, Napolitano stated that
DiLorenzo had not used the word election nor had he men-
tioned a priest, minister, or rabbi.
DiLorenzo testified that Napolitano said he wanted the
cards so that he could show them to his boss and then tear
them up. DiLorenzo translated the card for Napolitano and
to the best of his ability explained what the card and his
signature thereon meant. DiLorenzo explained that it was up
to the Union as to whether to exercise the option to have an
NLRB election. However, DiLorenzo testified:
. he didn't seem to quite grasp the mechanics of it,
because he said he would sign the card. This was his
intention; he was interested in signing the card, because
he seemed to understand that it would mean a kind of
general improvement in the whole area there where he
works.
. there was talk about an election on the part of Mr.
Napolitano.... he seemed to think-and I think this is
a general consensus; at least, he reflected this-that there
had to be an election. He didn't quite grasp the fact that
the signing of the card was the authorization for repre-
sentation.
On the state of the record I cannot find that Napolitano's
card is a valid designation of the Union to be his collective-
bargaining agent. I am aware that in part I have taken evi-
dence of Napolitano's subjective intent into consideration in
reaching this conclusion. However, in view of the fact that he
could not read the card and that DiLorenzo who read it to
him and explained its meaning testified that Napolitano
34 Napolitano testified with the aid of an interpreter.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"didn't quite grasp the fact that the signing of the card was
the authorization for representation," I am constrained to
reject Napolitano's card.
Michele Schettino
Schettino has been in the United States for 15Y, months and
has worked for the Company 15 months. He testified in this
proceeding through an interpreter. His union card in evi-
dence is dated June 22. Schettino signed the card but all other
material on the card was filled in by some unidentified person.
Schettino testified that on June 22 he walked out with the
other employees. At that time his friends were signing cards
so he signed one. He knew it was a union card but no more
than that. He cannot read the English language card and no
one translated it for him.
As with Napolitano there is no evidence (indeed the record
indicates to the contrary) that Schettino knew he was author-
izing the Union to represent him when he signed the card.
Accordingly, I reject Schettino's card as a valid designation
of the Union as his bargaining representative.
Glenn Tanner
Tanner filled out and signed his union card on June 22
during the walkout that day. Tanner recalled that the card
was signed before Harcar arrived and spoke to the employees.
Summerville gave the card to Tanner, who, without any dis-
cussion with Summerville, read the card and signed and re-
turned it to Summerville.
I find that Tanner's card is a valid designation of the Union
to be his bargaining agent and should be counted in comput-
ing the Union's majority on June 22 when Harcar orally
reiterated the Union's demand for recognition.35
Joseph P. Todd
On June 18 Todd asked Bobby Jones for a union card
which he signed and returned to Jones. Todd had no conver-
sation with Jones about the card. Under examination by Re-
spondent's counsel Todd testified as follows:
Q. Did you have any discussion about the fact that a
majority of the guys had already signed?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that discussion?
A. Well, I heard Bill Summerville tell, when I worked
down in the chassis department, that he said-
A. He told me that all the guys had signed the cards
-most of the guys.
A. Well, we was just talking and he said that most of
the guys had signed the cards. He said they just needed
a few more guys to sign the cards.
I find that Todd's card is a valid designation of the Union
as his bargaining representative and was not induced by any
misrepresentation that a majority of the employees had al-
ready signed cards. The only reference to a majority in Todd's
testimony was in the leading question put to him by Respond-
ent's counsel.
33 I have heretofore noted and discredited Timothy Bums' claim that in
a conversation on June 22 Summerville attempted to prevent Tanner from
attending the meeting at the C & A Hall during the walkout because Tanner
had not signed a union card. Tanner did not mention such a conversation
with Summerville and as set forth above stated that he had no conversation
with Summerville.
John Widelko
Widelko's union card is dated February 6 and was turned
in to Harcar at the meeting in the union office on February
11. After first testifying that he had been told that the solicita-
tion of the cards would lead to an election, Widelko stated
that at the meeting Harcar said that if there was a high
percentage of cards signed the Union would come in without
an election. However, Widelko could not recall that Harcar
had said anything about a card check at the meeting on
February 11. I have heretofore found that Harcar did explain
the mechanics of a card check at that meeting and that Wi-
delko was present. I find that Widelko's recollection is faulty,
that he was not induced to sign and turn in his authorization
card on the representation that it was for an election only, and
that his card is a valid authorization for the Union to be his
bargaining representative.
Conclusions
I have heretofore found that at the time of the Union's
demands for recognition, which came on June 19 and 22,
there were 53 employees in the bargaining unit. Based upon
the analysis above, I find that on June 19 the Union possessed
valid authorization cards from 30 employees in the unit and
that on June 22 the number of valid authorizations had in-
creased to 32. Thus, on both critical dates the Union repre-
sented a majority of employees in the unit.
K. The Refusal To Bargain
I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as requested
and that the only appropriate remedy is an order to bargain
with the Union. Moreover, Respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices were so flagrant and coercive in nature as to require,
even in the absence of an 8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order
to repair their effect.
The Supreme Court, in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Com-
pany, 395 U.S. 575, 615, in setting forth general principles
applicable to the issuance of bargaining orders, held that the
Board has authority to issue such orders to remedy unfair
labor practices "so coercive that, even in the absence of a §
8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order would have been neces-
sary to repair the unlawful effect of those [unfair labor prac-
tices]." Earlier in Gissel Packing36 the Court had approved
the Board's authority to issue a bargaining order " ... in less
extraordinary cases marked by less pervasive practices which
nevertheless still have the tendency to undermine majority
strength and impede the election processes." In such a case
the Board must examine the nature and extent of the em-
ployer's unlawful conduct and determine the likelihood that
the use of traditional remedies would ensure a fair election.
The Court instructed the Board to decide whether " . . . even
though traditional remedies might be able to ensure a fair
election, there was insufficient indication that an election
. would definitely be a more reliable test of the employees'
desires than the card count taken before the unfair labor
practices occurred."37 Medley Distilling Company, Inc., 187
NLRB No. 12.
Following the Union's demand for recognition received
June 20, on June 22 Marinelli went through the plant asking
the employees if they had heard anything about the Union
and union cards. When a delegation of employees met with
Marinelli after the lunchbreak, advised the Company's presi-
dent that a majority of the employees had signed cards for the
36 395 U.S. 575, 614.
37 395 U.S. 575, 616.
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Union, and asked that he discuss this situation with them,
Marinelli told the men to forget about the Union, that there
would be no union in his plant, he would run the shop the
way he saw fit, and before a union came in he would close the
plant doors. Thereafter, while the walkout was in progress
Marinelli offered to post some proposals relating to working
conditions and have the men vote on what they wanted,
telling the men they could get a committee or some kind of
organization. Following the walkout, when the men offered
to return to work, Marinelli attempted to have the men line
up so as to show support for the Union or Respondent. Mari-
nelli again threatened to close the plant, said the men who
had led the walkout were fired, suggested the formation of the
Employees Grievance Committee, and later that evening fired
four employees for "instigating a wildcat strike." On June 23
Respondent discharged four more employees because they
showed support for the employees discharged on June 22, and
later that day instigated and promoted the formation of the
Committee, a dominated labor organization, conducted an
election for committeemen for the Committee, and began
bargaining with the Committee concerning the employees'
working conditions and wages. Finally, on July 2 all or sub-
stantially all of the employees received a wage increase which
Respondent had negotiated with the Committee. Though not
in response to the demand for recognition, Respondent's mas-
sive violations of Section 8(a)(1) in February, following dis-
covery of the organizing campaign as well as the discharges
of Callahan and Lengyel followed by the violations in June
detailed above, demonstrate Respondent's recidivist tenden-
cies. In Gissel Packing" the Court looked to this as another
factor supporting a bargaining order, stating:
In fashioning a remedy in the exercise of its discretion,
then, the Board can properly take into consideration the
extensiveness of the employer's unfair practices in terms
of their past effect on election conditions and the likeli-
hood of their recurrence in the future.
"Respondent's course of unlawful conduct has demonstrated
... a propensity to engage in violations of the Act by their
nature designed to undermine the Union's support among the
employees. Its unfair labor practices were so flagrant and
coercive in nature as to require, even in the absence of a
Section 8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order to repair their
effect.... in any event ... Respondent's unfair labor prac-
tices were of such a pervasive character as to make it unlikely
that their coercive effects would be neutralized by conven-
tional remedies so as to produce a fair election. In these
circumstances, [I] believe that employee sentiment as ex-
pressed through the authorization cards is a more reliable
measure of their desires on the issue of representation in this
case than an election would be. [I] therefore find that by
refusing to bargain with the Union and engaging in extensive
unfair labor practices, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1), and that to effectuate the policies of the Act, a
bargaining order' is required to remedy its refusal to bargain
as well as its other unfair labor practices." [Footnotes omit-
ted.] Medley Distilling Company, Inc., supra.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Company's opera-
tions 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
" e 395 U.S. 575, 614.
139
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged
Edward Callahan, Albert Lengyel, Walter Korab, William
Summerville, Clair Catterson, Robert Jones, Frank Genareo,
Joseph Todd, Randall Rubeis, and Donald Marcarella, I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate the
named employees to their former positions or, if those posi-
tions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privi-
leges," and to make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered as a result of Respondent's unlawful conduct.
Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added
thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As to the Employees Grievance Committee, having found
that the Respondent dominated and interfered with its forma-
tion and administration, I shall recommend that the Com-
pany be ordered to withdraw recognition from and com-
pletely disestablish the Committee.
Having found that the Union represented a majority of
Respondent's employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
and that its demands for recognition and bargaining were
unlawfully refused, I shall recommend that the Company be
ordered to bargain, upon request, with the Union and to
embody any agreement reached in a written signed agree-
ment.
Respondent's unfair labor practices indicate an attitude of
opposition to the purposes of the Act generally. Accordingly,
a broad cease-and-desist order is necessary and appropriate
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. City Welding & Manufacturing Company is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District No. 106, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
hereinabove in section III, C, D, E, F, and H, hereof, Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section
7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct described in section III, H,
hereof, Respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Employees Grievance
Committee, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1)
of the Act.
5. By engaging in the conduct described in section III, C,
E, F, and G, hereof, Respondent discriminated against Ed-
ward Callahan, Albert Lengyel, Walter Korab, William Sum-
" From the record it appears that all of the discharged employees were
subsequently reemployed by the Company. However, on the record in this
case it is impossible to determine whether that reemployment constituted
reinstatement within the meaning of the recommended remedy.
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
merville, Clair Catterson, Robert Jones, Frank Genareo, Jo-
seph Todd, Randall Rubeis, and Donald Marcarella in regard
to the terms and conditions of their employment, in order to
discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Respondent's New Castle, Pennsylvania, plant,
excluding office clerical employees and guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
7. On and at all times since June 19, 1970, the Union has
been the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the aforesaid collective-bargaining unit.
8. By refusing on and after June 19, 1970, to recognize and
bargain collectively with the Union, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the employees in an appropriate bargain-
ing unit, Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:40
ORDER
Respondent, City Welding & Manufacturing Company, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Creating the impression of surveillance of the em-
ployees' union activities; threatening employees with demo-
tions and wage decreases if they select the Union as their
bargaining representative; threatening plant closure if the
Union is selected as the employees' bargaining representative;
asking employees to turn in to the Respondent their union
authorization cards; questioning employees about their own
union activities and feelings and those of their fellow em-
ployees; and granting wage increases in order to dissuade the
employees from joining or supporting the Union.
(b) Dominating or interfering with the formation and ad-
ministration of the Employees Grievance Committee or any
other labor organization of its employees.
(c) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other
labor organization, by discriminating against employees in
regard to the terms and conditions of their employment.
(d) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District No. 106, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its employees in the following ap-
propriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Respondent's New Castle, Pennsylvania, plant,
excluding office clerical employees and guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7 of the Act.
'0 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall as provided in
- Section 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 it is found
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request , recognize and bargain collectively with
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District No. 106, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all production and maintenance employees em-
ployed at the Respondent's New Castle, Pennsylvania, plant,
excluding office clerical employees and guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed written
agreement.
(b) Permanently withdraw from the Employees Grievance
Committee, or any successor thereto, all recognition as repre-
sentative of Respondent's employees for treating or dealing
with Respondent in respect to grievances, wages, earnings, or
other terms and conditions of employment, and completely
disestablish it as such representative.
(c) Offer Edward Callahan, Albert Lengyel, Walter Korab,
William Summerville, Clair Catterson, Robert Jones, Frank
Genareo, Joseph Todd, Randall Rubeis, and Donald Mar-
carella, to the extent that it has not already done so, immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination
against them as set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(d) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board
or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(f) Post at its New Castle, Pennsylvania, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix C."41 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
6, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including 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.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.42
41 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 OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
°' In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
APPENDIX A
Raymond Forkey
Angelo Feloa
Alfred Oliva
William Summerville
James Burke
Anthony Fundoots
Edward Bucker
Matteo Reino
Antonio Fusco
Raymond Karns
Albert Reno
Mariano Simeone
Timothy Burns
Anthony Angelo
Anthony Antuono
Curtis Crill
Arthur DiCola, Jr.
Richard Shaffer
David Duddy
Al Lengyel
Gerald Maggie
Walter Korab
James DeRosa
Joseph Sabino
Robert Druschel
Glenn Tanner
Constant Evanoski
Edward Callahan
Glenn Blews
Steve Hallowich
Steve DeGennaro
Michele Schettino
Louis Napolitano
Robert Jones
William Miller
Randell Rubeis
John Widelko
Donald Marcarella
Frank Genareo
Jerry Passerrello
Joseph Todd
Salvatore Schettino
Larry Marshall
Donald Haben
Lewis Mitten
Robert Cioffi
Anthony Masone
Donato Circelli
Raymond Attisano
Joseph Tuscano
Harold Forkey
Stanley Walczak
141
Clair Catterson
142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
Name Date of Card Valid at time of
6/19 demand
Valid at time of
6/22 demand
Angelo June 18 - -
Antuono June 18 X X
Attisano June 18 X X
Bucker Feb. 7 X X
Burke Feb. 6 X X
Burns Feb. 16 X X
Callahan Feb. 5 X X
Catterson Feb. 6 X X
Crill Feb. 11 X X
DeGennero June 22 - -
e osa Feb. 11 X X
Duddy Feb. 20 X X
Evanoski June 19 - X
Harold Forkey June 18 X X
Ray Forkey June 1 8 X
Fundoots June 1 7 X
Genareo Feb. 20 X
Haben June 18 X X
Jones June 18 X X
Korab Feb. 11 X X
Lengyel Feb. 9 X X
Macarella June 18 X X
Maggie Feb. 17 X X
Marshall Feb. 6 X X
Napolitano March 6 - -
Passerrello June 18 X X
Reno June 19 X X
Rubeis Feb. 19 X X
Schettino June 22 - -
Simeone Feb. 10 X X
Summerville Feb. 11 X X
Tanner June 22 - X
Todd June 18 X X
Tuscano June 19 X X
Walcztk June 18 X X
Wideiko Feb. 6 X X
CITY WELDING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 143
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concern-
ing rates of pay, wages , hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT say or act in such a way as to make our
employees think we are spying on their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with demo-
tions or less pay if they select the International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District No.
106, AFL-CIO, as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if our em-
ployees select that Union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees to turn their union
cards in to the Company.
WE WILL NOT question employees about their union
activities or feelings or the union activities and feelings
of other employees.
WE WILL NOT grant wages increases to keep our em-
ployees from joining or supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT discharge or in any way discriminate
against any of our employees because of their member-
ship in, sympathy for, or activities on behalf of the Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District No. 106, AFL-CIO, or because they
engage in any activities of mutual self-help.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with our
employees in exercising their rights to join or assist, or
to refrain from joining or assisting, any union, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Manage-
ment Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Edward Callahan, Albert Lengyel,
Walter Korab, William Summerville , Clair Catterson,
Robert Jones, Frank Genareo, Joseph Todd , Randall
Rubeis, and Donald Marcarella their jobs back with
backpay.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain with the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, District No. 106, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached , embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed at the Respondent 's New Castle , Pennsyl-
vania, plant excluding office clerical employees and
guards, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
CITY WELDING
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
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 compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536
Federal Building , 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh , Pennsyl-
vania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977.