Communication Systems Construction, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 652 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Communication Systems Construction, Inc. and Fran-
cis Meyer and Robert A. DeLutio and Communica-
tions Workers of America, District 1, AFL-CIO.
Cases 29-CA-3212, 29-CA-3401, and 29-
RC-2091
March 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On October 31, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Anne F. Schlezinger issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in opposition thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, and
hereby orders that Respondent, Communications
Systems Construction, Inc., Huntington Station,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ANNE F. SCHLEZINGER , Administrative Law Judge:
Upon the basis of a charge filed in Case 29-CA-3212 on
January 10, 1973,' by Francis Meyer ,2 an individual,
referred to herein as Meyer , the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
I All dates herein refer to 1973 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Referred to in the record also as Frank and as Frances Meyer.
3 Objections to the election filed by the CWA were rejected by the
for Region 29 (Brooklyn, New York), issued a complaint
on March 23 alleging that Communication Systems
Construction, Inc., herein called the Respondent, had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and had thereby
violated the National Labor Relations Act, Series 8, as
amended. A charge was filed in Case 29-CA-3401 on May
16 by Robert A. DeLutio, an individual, referred to herein
as DeLutio. On July 26, the Regional Director issued an
order consolidating Cases 29-CA-3212 and 29-CA-3401,
and on August 16 issued an order consolidating these cases'
and certain issues raised in objections to an election
conducted by the Regional Director in Case 29-RC-2091.
In that election, conducted pursuant to a stipulation for
certification upon consent election, both Communication
Workers of America, District 1, AFL-CIO, referred to
herein as CWA, and Local Union 25, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, referred to
herein as IBEW, appeared on the ballot. During the
hearing herein, the parties entered into a stipulation
providing that a new election would be conducted at a time
and place to be determined by the Regional Director, that
the objections to the election filed by the IBEW were
withdrawn, and that the representation case issues were
severed from this proceeding.3 The issues considered
herein are, therefore, those raised by the consolidated
complaint in Cases 29-CA-3212 and 29-CA-3401.
In its answers, duly filed to each complaint, the
Respondent admits certain factual allegations in the
complaints, and incorporates some of its answers to the
objections to the election, but denies the commission of the
alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the
Administrative Law Judge at Brooklyn, New York, on
August 20 and 21. All the parties who appeared at the
hearing were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
present evidence, and to examine and cross-examine
witnesses. At the close of the hearing, the General Counsel
and the Respondent presented closing argument. Subse-
quent to the hearing, briefs were filed on or about
September 27 by the General Counsel and the Respondent
which have been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by
virtue of, the laws of the State of Delaware . It maintains its
principal office and place of business in the town of
Huntington Station, county of Suffolk, New York, and is
engaged in the construction and installation of television
antennas and cables for cable television companies. During
the past year, which period is representative of its annual
operations generally, the Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its operations, performed services valued in
Regional Director as untimely The CWA made no appearance at the
instant hearing but is a signatory to the stipulation , which was executed
after the close of the hearing.
209 NLRB No. 105
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
excess of $300,000, of which services valued in excess of
$50,000 were performed in and for various enterprises
located in States other than the State of New York. The
consolidated complaint alleges, the Respondent in its
answers admits, and I find that the Respondent is, and at
all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
I find, as the consolidated complaint alleges and the
Respondent in its answers admits, that Local Union 25,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CI-
O, and Communication Workers of America, District 1,
AFL-CIO, are, and at all times material herein have been,
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The consolidated complaint alleges that James Nishimu-
ra, president of the Respondent, Paul Consigli, a labor
relations consultant, and Harold Nichols and Richard
Welch, supervisors, are, and at all times material herein
have been, agents of the Respondent acting on its behalf
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act; that the
Respondent, by Consigh, on various dates during October
to December 1972, interrogated its employees concerning
their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympa-
thies for the IBEW and the CWA, and kept under
surveillance the meetings and activities of these organiza-
tions and the protected concerted activities of its employ-
ees; that the Respondent, by Nichols, on various dates
during November 1972, threatened employees with closing
the plant, subcontracting out work, and other reprisals if
they became members of or gave any assistance and
support to said organizations; that the Respondent, by
Nishimura, Consigli, Nichols, and Welch, promised and
granted to its employees wage increases, overtime pay,
promotions, and other employment benefits to induce
them to refrain from membership in or from giving any
assistance or support to said organizations; that the
Respondent during November 1972 discharged, and
thereafter failed and refused to reinstate, Donald Cowf,
Edward Dooley, Robert DeLutio, Michael Profeta, and
Richard Trinka because these employees joined and
assisted the IBEW and/or the CWA and engaged in other
protected concerted activities; and that the Respondent, by
the foregoing acts and conduct, has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure and the
terms and conditions of employment of its employees in
order to discourage membership in labor organizations,
and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The Respondent in its answers admits that Nishimura,
653
Consigli, Nichols, and Welch are agents of the Respon-
dent; admits that it has discharged and refused to reinstate
Cowf, Dooley, DeLutio, and Trinka; alleges the discharges
were for cause; denies the allegations as to Profeta; and
denies the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
The General Counsel's brief states that "due to evidence
developed before trial as well as during the course of the
proceeding, the General Counsel hereby withdraws Profe-
ta's name as an alleged 8(a)(3)." The issues herein are,
therefore, whether or not the Respondent engaged in the
acts and conduct alleged to constitute interference,
restraint, and coercion of its employees, and whether the
discharges of Cowf, Dooley, DeLutio, and Trinka were
discriminatory or for cause.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Interrogation and surveillance
The CWA began organizing the Respondent's employees
in early October 1972. The IBEW intervened shortly before
the election held on December 1, 1972, with both unions
on the ballot. Nishimura notified his counsel, whose office
is in Philadelphia, of the CWA campaign, and retained
Consigli, a labor relations consultant, whose function, as
he testified, is to help defeat union organizational cam-
paigns. Consigli held meetings in management offices or
the plant conference room with employees, individually or
in groups, at which, at times , Nishimura, Nichols, and
other management representatives were present. The
meetings began with Nishimura having employees called to
the office by the supervisors during working hours or as the
employees came in from the field after work. There
Nishimura admittedly introduced Consigli as a friend who
was going to help in regard to the election, asked for the
employees' support in the election, and inquired about
their reasons for wanting a union.
One of the first employees summoned to the office was
Keith Pape, a crew chief.4 According to his testimony,
Consigli told him Nishimura had said Pape could be
trusted, stated that this Company was too small for a union
and Nishimura could not afford a union, and asked Pape if
he knew any other employee who could be trusted. Pape
named Lockwood, also a crew chief, and was sent to
summon Lockwood to the office. Pape and Lockwood
testified that Consigh made the same introductory remarks
to Lockwood as he had to Pape; that he asked both of
them to help stop the union drive and they agreed to do so;
that he then went down a list of about 20 names of the
employees eligible to vote, asked Pape and Lockwood
which ones were for or against the CWA, who were
undecided, and whose union sentiments they did not
know; that Consigli made marks on the list according to
the information given him; and that he asked them to talk
to the men and to try to overhear their conversations in
order to find out which ones, if any, were pro-CWA, to try
to persuade them to support the Employer in this contest,
and to report to him at later meetings what they learned.
Pape and Lockwood also testified that later meetings
followed the same pattern, with Consigli going down a list
4 The parties stipulated herein that crew chiefs, who were included in the
election voting unit, are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of names and marking the list as Pape and Lockwood
reported whatever additional information they had elicited
about the union sentiments of the employees . Both Pape
and Lockwood testified that at one of their early meetings
with Consigli the names they gave as proumon included
Cowf , DeLutio , Dooley, Meyer , and Trinka ; and that
Consigh checked the attendance and production records of
the employees named , and commented , as to some , that he
could get rid of them on the basis of attendance and, as to
others, on the basis of their work records. Some of those
named by Pape and Lockwood were discharged as
discussed below.
Robert Negri , who was a crew chief , testified that he was
told one day to stay after work and was then called into a
meeting with Consigli at which Nishimura and Nichols
were also present part of the time ; that Consigli said the
men "would be able to work in more harmony" and there
would be better possibilities of advancement without a
union ; and that Consigli asked many questions about the
union attitude of every employee named on a list he had,
and took notes of what Negri responded even though
Negri deliberately made his responses vague.
Pape and Lockwood met in the office with Consigli, with
Nishimura and other management representatives some-
times present , more frequently than other employees, and
furnished information about the employees ' union sympa-
thies . In addition , they were twice taken to dinner with
Consigli, Nishimura, and other management representa-
tives at Nishimura 's expense . There were also two
companywide dinners on November 21 and 30 paid for by
Nishimura . Notices placed on the desk and posted at the
timeclock announced that these dinners were employee
meetings to discuss unions, and directed employees to sign
if they were going to attend so the Respondent would
know how many would be present . Many of the unit
employees attended both dinners . Meyer , who attended
both , testified that Consigh sat next to him, asked who
some individuals were , and marked a list he had as Meyer
identified the individuals in question . Both Consigli and
Nishimura made talks at these dinners.
Pape and Lockwood indicated they attended about 5
meetings with Consigli . Consign, however , testified he had
"Innumerable" meetings, approximately "A dozen," at
which both Pape and Lockwood and at times other
employees were present. Nishimura indicated in his
testimony that there were a number of these meetings at
which he was present at least part of the time . Nichols
testified about one meeting at which Consign, Pape, and
Lockwood were present , which he attended only long
enough to be told to rescind the discharge of Meyer. He
did not testify about other meetings he attended, and the
other management representatives who attended these
meetings from time to time were not called as witnesses.
Consign and Nishimura maintained in their testimony
that Pape and Lockwood volunteered the information they
gave . Consign testified at different points that the informa-
tion from Pape and Lockwood "was free flowing, without
any questions"; that "The information that was so freely
flowing from every employee in that office prohibited
anybody from asking a question"; and that the only
employees who volunteered information were Pape and
Lockwood . On the other hand , Nishimura , when asked
how his "dealings" with Pape "with respect to the union
organizational drive" arose, replied : "Well, as I-we were
campaigning , if that's the term , for the support of our men
in this union election . Mr. Consigh and I had wanted to
speak-and I do believe that we spoke to almost every
member of the company , every member of the company
voting, that is , that was eligible to vote , to determine what
their-we were trying to determine what , if any , reason
there was for wanting to have the union represent them
... what, if any the problems are that they would vote for
the union or want a union to represent them ." He testified
further that he and Consigh called on Pape and Lockwood
to assist them in this matter because as crew chiefs Pape
and Lockwood were "more cognizant of some of the
gripes" of the employees , that he was at a number of
meetings with Pape and Lockwood , but that "I think I met
with virtually all of the employees during this campaign."
Pape was at this time on probation for a criminal
conviction , as Nishimura knew . One condition of Pape's
probation was that he be employed , and he was grateful to
Nishimura for giving him employment in these circum-
stances . Consigli testified that Nishimura told him, when
he began his investigation , that Pape was "totally opposed"
to the CWA , but Nishimura , when asked about informa-
tion he received during the preelection period as to the
union sentiments of employees , stated that Pape and
Lockwood "never-to my best recollection , I don't think
they ever said they were for or against it. . . ." Consigli
also stated that Nishimura told him , in confidence, that
Pape would support management in this matter because of
his probation situation, whereas Nishimura testified that
Pape never indicated to him why he was voluntarily
furnishing the information in question.
The Respondent argues that Pape 's testimony cannot be
credited because he had been found guilty of a criminal act
and was on probation , he failed to reveal in the first
affidavit he gave to a Board agent matters he described in a
second affidavit and in his testimony , and he was resentful
of his discharge by the Respondent . Pape admitted the
variance in his affidavits . He explained that because he felt
grateful to Nishimura for employing him while he was on
probation , he was reluctant , at the time of the first
affidavit , to say anything damaging to Nishimura ; that he
therefore mentioned the Consigli meetings but not what
occurred at them ; and that , following what he considered
an unjust discharge, he told in his second affidavit and in
his testimony what transpired at these meetings. Pape's
discharge is not alleged to be violative of the 'Act.
Lockwood is still employed by the Respondent. Negri left
the Respondent's employ voluntarily on January 1. Meyer
was discharged at noon on November 16, 1972 , was called
back and told his discharge was in error and was paid for
the time he missed, and was discharged again on January
2, but is not a complainant herein . Pape, Lockwood , Negri,
and Meyer appeared to be candid and credible witnesses;
they gave consistent , mutually corroborative descriptions
of the events in question; and their testimony in many
respects is unrefuted or admitted. On the other hand, the
testimony of Consigli and Nishimura contains numerous
inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities, as well as
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. 655
contradictions of themselves and of each other. On the
basis of the demeanor of the witnesses, the nature of their
testimony, and the evidence in its entirety, I credit the
testimony of Pape, Lockwood, Negri, and Meyer, and find,
accordingly, that the Respondent had employees sum-
moned to the office by supervisors to be questioned by
Consigli, in the presence of Nishimura and other manage-
ment representatives, about the union sentiments of all the
employees eligible to vote in the upcoming election. I find
that the Respondent, by such coercive interrogation,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.5
I find further that the evidence establishes that Consigli
enlisted Pape and Lockwood to talk to employees and to
try to overhear conversations in order to obtain further
information about the employees' union sentiments to
report to him, and that the Respondent thereby maintained
surveillance over the union and concerted activities of its
employees, in further violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act .6
2. Promises and grants of benefits
Pape and Lockwood testified that Consigli promised
they would be rewarded by Nishimura for their assistance
in furnishing information about the employees' union
sentiments. As their meetings with Consigli were generally
held after regular working hours, they were instructed to
repunch the timeclock after the meetings in order to be
reimbursed for this time. In addition, both Pape and
Lockwood received 25-cent an hour wage increases shortly
after the meetings began, and Lockwood testified that
Consigli also promised another raise after the election as
well as "rain-pay" for crew chiefs when bad weather
prevented the crews from installing cable. After the
election, Pape reminded Consigli that he and Lockwood
had been promised a "bonus" for their cooperation.
Consigli spoke to Nishimura, and reported back to Pape
that they would receive an additional amount in their next
paycheck. Both received in their next check pay for 12
hours' overtime they had not worked.
As noted above, Negri testified that he was told by
Consigli, at their meeting in the office, that there would be
greater possibility of advancement without a union. He
also testified that Consigli asked him what benefits the
crew chiefs and employees were seeking; that, in response
to his comments about rain pay and about a 25-cent raise,
Consigli said that Negri as a crew chief would get both;
and that he had not in fact received any pay for days he
did not work, and did not know if he received the 25-cent
increase before he left the Respondent's employ on
January 1. There is no evidence that any of the crew chiefs
in fact received rain pay.
Meyer, who was discharged by Nichols on November 16,
5 Amcon International, Inc, 205 NLRB No 157. Walgreen Co, 206
NLRB No 15
6 Elm Hill ,deals of Owensboro, Inc. 205 NLRB No 41; Amcon
International, Inc, supra
7 Texaco, Inc N, N L R B, 436 F 2d 520, 524 (C A. 7, 1971), holding that,
The purpose of section 8(a)(1) is to protect the employees ' right to
organize without interference from the employer [Citation ] Conse-
quently the promise of benefits such as wage increases is held to be a
was called back, was told he had been discharged with
others by mistake, and was paid for the 1 day he missed.
Meyer attended both of the company dinner meetings. He
testified that at the second dinner, held on November 30,
Nichols handed out paychecks; that he noticed his was for
more money than he had been receiving; that he asked
Nichols about it and was told he had been raised from
$3.25 to $3.50 an hour; and that he had not requested or
heard anything about an increase in pay prior to the
receipt of his check at this dinner meeting.
As Consigli and Nishimura admitted, they asked
employees at the meetings in the office what their gripes
were, promised to remedy some of them, and did
immediately change certain equipment and procedures as
safety measures. Nishimura in fact testified, on cross-
examination by the General Counsel, that at the meetings
with employees "we explained the forthcoming election
and that I wanted their support and that-well, we were
campaigning"; that when he and Consigli asked employees
what the reasons were for wanting a union, the complaints
about certain safety features were "so basic" that they told
the employees "we would, I'm sure, take care of it"; and
that he directed Chaney , general manager, to take care of
these matters, and Chaney personally worked that Satur-
day and Sunday to make some of the changes immediately.
The Respondent contends in its brief that all raises and
benefits granted during this period were in accord with
past practice. The record, however, does not support this
contention. I find, on the basis of the testimony of Pape,
Lockwood, Negri, and Meyer, which I credit, the admis-
sions made by the Respondent's witnesses , and the record
as a whole, that the Respondent promised and granted
wage increases and other employee benefits to induce
employees to abandon union membership and interest in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.7 I find further that
the Respondent, by soliciting and remedying employee
grievances, conduct "clearly calculated to induce the
employees to abandon their interest in the union," further
violated Section 8(a)(1) "notwithstanding the fact that the
company was legally obligated to take the remedial steps it
did take" as to matters involving safety.8
3. Threats
Pape testified that, shortly after the CWA organizing
activity began, Nichols, the construction superintendent,
said he would like to find out who called in the CWA
because he would discharge him. Negri testified that in a
discussion about unions with Nichols out in the field,
Nichols mentioned the possibility that the work would be
subcontracted out to private companies if a union got in.
Meyer testified that he was at a bar called the Watering
Hole with other employees and Nichols shortly before the
election, that they were discussing unions, and that Nichols
said the Respondent would subcontract the work and close
violation of 8(a)(I) of the Act whether or not the employees or the
employer initiate the suggestion [Citation ] Section 8(a)(1) reaches "not
only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately
favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose
of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization
and is reasonably calculated to have that effect " N L R B v Exchange
Parts Co, 375 U.S 405.409
R Texaco, Inc v NLRB, supra
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the shop if it went union. Warren DeKletne, who was a
lineman-trainee during the union organizing campaign
and, at the time of the hearing, was employed as a crew
chief, testified that on a date between the dinner meetings
held on November 21 and 30, both of which he attended,
he overheard part of a conversation between Nichols and
Meyer in Nichols' office during which Nichols stated that
if a union got in Nishimura would close the shop.
Nichols, called as a witness by the Respondent, testified
that he was present at the hearing when Meyer testified.
Asked then if he heard Meyer testify that he said
Nishimura would close the shop or subcontract the work if
a union got in, he replied, "I don't remember anything
about it." Asked if he ever made such a statement at the
Watering Hole, he replied, "I don't remember," and, again,
"I can 't remember that I said it." Nichols, who testified
that he also heard DeKletne's testimony, was asked if he
ever told Meyer "that work would be subcontracted out
during the course of that conversation," and replied, "I
don't think I said that to him." Asked finally whether he
told any employee at any time that, if any union got in, the
shop would fold or the work would be subcontracted,
Nichols replied, "No." Nishimura testified that he never
told Nichols or any other supervisor or employee he would
close down or subcontract the work if a union came in. He
pointed out that, between counsel and Consigli, he knew
"many, many things" that he was or was not "permitted to
do during this election campaign," but, he admitted, "I
don't really know if that specific question was-if that
specific point was brought up"
Counsel for the Respondent also asked Nichols if he ever
tried to find out who brought the CWA in and said he
would fire the one who did. Nichols replied: "If I
remember right, I said I would like to find out. But I don't
remember saying about firing anybody about it or
anything like that." Nichols testified, on cross-examination
by the General Counsel, that he made his remark about
finding out who brought in the CWA to several people
standing around but did not remember who they were. He
testified that he also asked Trinka, whose discharge is in
issue , about the last of October or in November, who
called in the CWA because he heard that a CWA man
came in and asked for Trinka, and he also overheard
Trinka talking about the CWA around the shop.
I find Nichols' evasive and equivocal denials less
credible and convincing than the testimony of Pape, Negri,
Meyer, and DeKleine, none of whom is an alleged
discriminatee, about remarks Nichols made to them or that
they heard him make .9 I find, accordingly, that Nichols
asked employees who initiated the CWA organizing
activity, that he accompanied this admitted inquiry with a
threat to discharge whoever did so, and that he told
employees the shop would close or the work would be
subcontracted out if the union organizing drive succeeded.
The Board holds that "threats of probable plant closings
are among the most serious and most flagrant interferences
9 Reliance Universal, Inc, 206 NLRB No. 45
10 Automated Business Systems, A Division of Litton Business Systems,
Inc, A Subsidiary of Litton Industries, Inc, 205 NLRB No. 35.
11 Elm Hills Meats of Owensboro, Inc., supra, Amcon International, Inc.,
supra, Walgreen Co., supra. That such conduct by an admitted supervisor
with the right of employees to decide for themselves the
question of union representation." 10 I find, accordingly,
that the Respondent, by Nichols' threats and interrogation,
has further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.ti
C. The Discharges
The General Counsel contends that Cowf, DeLutio,
Dooley, and Trinka were discharged during November
because they were identified as prounion. The Respondent
maintains that they were discharged for cause.
Pape and Lockwood testified that these four employees
were among those named at one of their early meetings
with Consigli; that Consigli obtained the time and
production records of employees who were named as
prounion, and commented that some could be terminated
for their attendance and others for their production; that
he made a separate list of these names ; and that these four
employees were discharged shortly after their names were
given to Consigli.12
Nichols testified that he recommended the discharge of
Cowf, Dooley, and Trinka, and that he discharged
DeLutio. As to the reasons, Nichols testified that he
discharged Cowf because Cowf missed work "quite a bit
... he was getting slack on his part of the job." He also
testified that he discharged DeLutio because "he was
missing quite a bit of work, so I fired him at the end of the
one week." He admitted, however, that DeLutio had been
hit by a car and this was the reason for his absences that
week. The accident had occurred on the job. Nichols
testified that he recommended Dooley's discharge because
of "Insubordination to his crew chiefs .... He wouldn't
do the work that he was required to do . . . . He wasn't
pulling his weight . . . he was always goofing off. He was
taking off from the job, too. Say, like, taking the truck off
maybe 15, 20 minutes." He testified that Kelly, who was
also named, quit because he got a better job. Nichols
testified further that he recommended Meyer's discharge
prior to the election because Meyer "had a bad attitude
towards work. I know on several occasions him and his
crew chiefs had an argument." He also testified, however,
that he rehired Meyer because he was called into a meeting
one night at which Consigli, Pape, and Lockwood had
been discussing Meyer; that "they figured that they ought
to give him another chance on the part that I would hire
him back and I would talk to him. But it was nothing about
union." Asked if he pointed out, in the discussion about
rehiring Meyer, that Meyer had a bad attitude or the other
reasons for his discharge, Nichols replied, "At that time, I
do not remember . . . I can't recall." On the other hand,
Nishimura testified that Meyer was one of those dis-
charged for absenteeism and low production, but rehired
because Nichols intervened on behalf of Meyer as an older
and more experienced employee.
Nichols admitted that he asked Trinka who called in the
CWA man, in late October or in November while Trinka
was still employed by the Respondent, because he learned
and agent is attributable to the Respondent whether or not authorized and
whether or not Nishimura himself made such threats , see GAC Properties,
Inc, 205 NLRB No 155.
12 None of these four dischargees was called as a witness.
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION, INC. 657
that a CWA man came to the shop and asked for Trinka
and he overheard Trinka talk about CWA around the
shop. He testified that he recommended Tnnka's dis-
charge, and testified further as follows:
A. I went out on the job one day right at lunch,
right at one o'clock, you know, right after lunch, and I
sat there on the job which he (Trinka] was working. I
can't recall where the job site was. I sat there for 2
hours waiting for him to come back from lunch. And
after 2 hours, maybe 2 hours or so they come back off
of lunch.
Q. And it was then that you fired Mr. Trinka?
A. No.
Q. When?
A. It was later after that.
Q. Did anything else happen after that?
A. After that, the crew which he was working
with-Dennis Kirby was crew chief then-that I went
out on a job and I couldn't find him all day. I went
looking for him. I found him that day at Dennis
Kirby's house and they were all drinking, so I fired
Dennis Kirby that evening.
Q. Did you fire Trinka then?
A. No, not until a couple of days later.
Q. Did something else happen?
A. Well, he had kind of like an attitude that, you
know.
Q. Then you recommended that he be fired?
A. Yes, sir.
s s s s s
Q. Now, you say with Mr. Trinka you eventually
fired him because of the attitude, because of his
attitude?
A. Yes, he had a bad attitude.
Q. You didn't fire him after you caught him
drinking on the job when he should have been out
working, did you?
A. Well, he wasn't the crew chief then. The first
one who should be responsible is the crew chief.
that he did, and that he thought they included Cowf,
Dooley, Kelly, and Meyer. He denied that he told
Nishimura about this but, after he was shown the affidavit
he had given a Board agent, admitted he did report to
Nishimura who attended the meetings "because I over-
heard it in the shop, you know, that they went," and that
the names included Cowf, Dooley, Kelly, and Meyer.
Nishimura testified that he was not aware that any of the
employees in question were prounion, was "Not really"
aware that any of the discharged employees had attended a
union meeting, and did not recall that Nichols reported to
him about attendance at meetings although he knew
Nichols so testified and "I think the affidavit so reflects."
He also testified that Nichols made the decision to
discharge Cowf, DeLutio, Dooley, and Trinka, that
Nichols always consulted him, that he was ultimately
responsible for all discharges, and that he made the
decision to discharge certain employees after discussion
with Pape, Lockwood, Nichols, and Chaney. Asked for
specific reasons for the discharges, however, Nishimura
testified: "Cowf, the name is familiar, Mr. Malin, but I'm
not certain except again when we did review several of the
people that we terminated in that period, the reason for the
great majority of firings or termination were because of the
absenteeism ...." Asked why Dooley was fired, Nishi-
mura testified: "Well, I'm sure . . . it was probably
because of the absenteeism and, as was testified here
before, due to the insubordination of the employee towards
his crew chief and to, indeed, his crew." Asked about his
use of the word "probably," Nishimura stated that he was
"quite certain," and that he was sure he discussed this
discharge with Nichols. At this point in his examination,
counsel for the Respondent handed Nishimura a document
that was described as handwritten notes Nishimura
prepared at or about the time Cowf and Dooley were
discharged, asked him if the notes refreshed his recollec-
tion, and Nishimura said they did. The General Counsel
protested that there had been no indication that the
witness' memory needed refreshing. After some colloquy,
counsel for the Respondent withdrew the document, which
the witness admitted, however, he had examined. When
questioned thereafter about DeLutio's discharge, Nishimu-
ra testified:
Q. And you, also, didn't fire Mr. Trinka after you
went to a job site where he was supposed to be and he
didn't show up for a few hours, did you?
A. No, sir.
Nichols testified at times that he discharged the
employees in question and at others that he recommended
their discharge. Finally, when asked whether, with regard
to Cowf, DeLutio, and Dooley, he made the decision "to
terminate them all on your own," he replied, "Yes, sir." He
admitted, however, that his decision to discharge Meyer
was revoked pursuant to a discussion with Consigli, Pape,
and Lockwood.
Nichols was asked, on cross-examiration by the General
Counsel, if he knew that DeLutio ever attended union
meetings, and replied, "Just on what I heard them saying
that they were going." Asked if he knew of other
employees who were attending union meetings, he replied
A. Mr. DeLutio is not familiar to me except that
his work records for absenteeism and lateness resulted
in his being terminated.
Q. Do you have any specifics with respect to his
absenteeism?
A. No, I do not.
He testified further that company records showed DeLutio
worked only 20 hours the week of his discharge, and that
was partially the reason for his discharge. That was the
week DeLutio was recovering from being struck by a car
on the job.
As to the reasons for the discharge of Trinka, Nishimura
testified:
A. Well, in the case of Trinka, Trinka, prior to his
becoming crew chief, had a history of drinking on the
job. As testified earlier by Nichols, he was at one time
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on a crew of Dennis Kirby, a former employee, who
was then crew chief of a crew that Tnnka was working
on, and they were found drinking at the crew chief's
house, that is, Dennis Kirby's house and brought back
to the office. Our then General Manager Jack Chaney
reprimanded them and fired or recommended firing of
the crew chief only because the crew, we felt at that
time, was not responsible for the actions of what the
crew chiefs were directing them to do, however, bad.
Tnnka was, also, reprimanded on several occasions by
his supervisor Harold Nichols and reported to me of his
long lunch hours and, also, again because of his not
coming to work either on time or missing completely
work, a work day. On the instance that he was actually
fired, he was fired, as stated by Harold Nichols,
because of his not being able to find Trinka at the job
site.
Nichols, however, testified that he did not discharge Tnnka
then but did a couple of days later because Trinka "had
kind of like an attitude that, you know."
Consigli testified, as to the discharges, that he never in
his life met DeLutio nor discussed DeLutio's discharge
with Nishimura and Nichols, that he was not sure whether
he knew or ever met Dooley, and that he never recom-
mended the discharge of DeLutio, Dooley, Cowf, Meyer,
Trinka, or anyone else. At another point he testified that he
was consulted by Nishimura about discharges only "After
the fact"; that Nishimura in these discussions told him, not
as to specific individuals but generally, about "Gentlemen
who are continuously absent from their job, gentlemen
who are either drunk on the job or are drinking on the job,
gentlemen who are late continuously on the job"; and that
he advised Nishimura, who "wasn't quite sure what he
could do" in this situation, that he could dismiss such
employees. Regarding his discussions with Pape and
Lockwood, Consigli testified that they advised him on
occasion that certain employees should be removed, that
one such employee was Meyer on the ground he did not do
his share of the work after he was rehired, that other
employees were discussed in the same context, and that
"The only thing I can do is remember some vague
discussions now.... there were a number of people-and
I think 2 or 3 of them are on that list that _ you
[Respondent's counsel] read off to me earlier-as actually
the guys who were sitting out on their duff out in the field
while other fellows had to be pulling double weight."
Consigli testified further, on cross-examination by the
General Counsel, that-
A. The information that they [Pape and Lock-
wood] were volunteering were, number one, what was
happening out in the field, who were the guys who were
not-who were the guys who were dragging their feet,
more or less, that should be discharged, the gentleman
who were not on the job who should be discharged,
those persons who indicated to them that they were
opposed to the CWA, that information came back to
me.
Q. Did they ever volunteer any information as to
who was pro CWA?
A. No. I believe at one time I was told that it would
probably be a unanimous vote in opposition to the
CWA.
He testified further that "Nichols' indication to me was
that there was no one. really interested in CWA."
Consigli also testified that he discussed with Nishimura
the complaints of the men about safety devices the same
day they were raised, and the situation was remedied that
weekend; that the complaints in addition to crew pay were
of men not doing the work and going to bars during
worktime; and that he said he would take this up with
management which would decide what action to take but
he would suggest discharge. He identified Meyer as one of
those who had been drinking, but could not recall any of
the names of those with attendance problems.
The Respondent placed in evidence a list of employees,
prepared by a bookkeeper at Nishimura's direction,
showing dates of employment 13 and "Reason for Leaving"
of employees at other operations of the Respondent as well
as the one here involved. It lists the following "Reason for
Leaving" as to the four employees here involved:
Cowf-Terminated-Work unsatisfactory.
DeLutro-Terminated-Unwilling to do work he was
hired to do.
Dooley-Terminated-Work unsatisfactory.
Tnnka-Terminated
Nishimura admitted these reasons varied somewhat from
those he gave in his testimony; explained that this
"capsulated form" might indicate additional reasons for
discharge; then admitted that he could not explain this
variance; and finally suggested that the General Counsel
question the employee's supervisor or crew chief about it.
No company documents were introduced in evidence
showing the attendance or production records of any
employees.
The Respondent contends that all the discharges were
for cause. It contends in addition, as to Trinka's discharge,
that it occurred on November 3, 1972, and that Consigli
arrived on the scene after that date. Employees testified
about being called into meetings with Consigli beginning in
"early November," and Pape testified that he thought it
was in the first week in November. It is undisputed that
Consigli held a good many meetings with Pape and
Lockwood present-Consigli thought about 12-prior to
the election that was held on December 1, 1972. Moreover,
both Pape and Lockwood testified that the prounion
employees whose names they gave Consigli included
Trinka.
Nishimura testified that he learned of the CWA
organizing drive in "early October 1972"; 14 he met
Consigli on an airplane trip in "Mid-October"; and
13 The list shows Cowf and Dooley terminated on November 16 and
DeLutio on November 17, 1972 The consolidated complaint alleges, and
the Respondent in its answers admits , that Cowf and Dooley were
terminated on or about November 17 and DeLutio on or about November
24 The date shown for Tnnka in both instances is November 3
14 The petition for an election was filed by the CWA on October 17,
1972.
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Consigli came to the Respondent's premises "on or about
the 9th of October." Respondent's counsel thereupon
asked, "You mean, of course, November, don't you?"
Nishimura replied, "Excuse me; yes, November." On'
cross-examination, the General Counsel asked the date on
which Nishimura said Consigli first came to the premises.
Nishimura replied, "On October 9th, I believe I. said."
Counsel for the Respondent interjected that, "I believe he
said November the 9th," and Nishimura then said that it
was "November the 9th, excuse me . . . To the best of my
recollection, yes." Nishimura, however, gave a different
date in his pretrial affidavit; he indicated considerable
uncertainty in his testimony about this date; and, while he
stated that the date was shown on the bill submitted by
Consigli, the bill was not placed in evidence.
Consigli testified that his first discussion with Nishimura
took place on an airplane trip on October 12, 1972; that he
first came to the Respondent's premises on "October the
19th, 1972, or somewhere around October the 9th"; and,
when counsel for the Respondent pointed out this
inconsistency in dates, stated that it was "November the
9th, excuse me, one month later." Consigli testified that
Trinka was "discharged prior to my emergence on the
scene, I believe," he was discharged "Somewhere around
the beginning of November, the very early part of
November," the date of his arrival and the fact that Trinka
was discharged before that date would be "clearly" shown
by his expense vouchers which were at the Respondent's
office, and he possessed and could furnish copies of his
expense vouchers. No such documents were placed in
evidence. I find, on the basis of the credited testimony of
Pape and Lockwood and the record as a whole, that Tnnka
was employed at the time Pape and Lockwood identified
him to Consigli as one of the prounion employees.
Concluding Findings
I have found above that the Respondent engaged in
unlawful interrogation as to the union sentiments of all the
employees in the voting unit; maintained surveillance over
the union and concerted activities of its employees;
promised and granted benefits to employees to induce
abandonment of their union membership and interest; and
made threats to close the shop or subcontract operations if
the union campaign was successful, and to discharge those
responsible for initiating the campaign. I also find, on the
basis of the record in its entirety, that the General Counsel
established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge
as to Cowf, DeLutio, Dooley, and Tnnka, and that the
Respondent has failed to present credible or probative
evidence that these discharges were for cause.
Pape and Lockwood testified credibly, and I find, that at
one of the first in their series of meetings with Consigh,
they named, among the employees they reported to be
prounion, Cowf, DeLutio, Dooley, and Trinka; that
15 U S. Nameplate Co., d/b/a Midwest Nameplate Co, 205 NLRB No
137
16 Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local No
83 (Fry, Inc), 205 NLRB No. 77, D H Farms Co, 206 NLRB No. 22.
i Coble Dairy Products Cooperative, Inc, 205 NLRB No 29 (discharges
of Fowler and Crosby).
18 North Shore Publishing Co, 206 N LRB No 7
19 Elm Hill Meats of Owensboro, Inc, supra
659
Consigli obtained the personnel files of the employees thus
identified and commented that they could be discharged
on the basis of either their attendance or their production
records; and that all four were discharged shortly after
their names were given to Consigli. The reasons that the
Respondent's witnesses asserted for the discharges are
vague, inconsistent , and unconvincing.15 Moreover, the
Respondent presented no attendance or production re-
cords for any of its employees; 16 no records to show the
date when the Consigli program was initiated with
reference to the date of Trinka's discharge; no evidence as
to its production standards or its policy regarding
absenteeism, which the record shows was a frequent
occurrence among the Respondent's employees; 17 and no
showing that any of the dischargees in question were
considered for discharge prior to the Respondent's antiun-
ion campaign.18 On the basis of demeanor and the record
as a whole, I find incredible the testimony by Consigli,
whose admitted function was to defeat the union drive,
that he held meeting after meeting with Pape and
Lockwood at which they volunteered only the names of
employees they thought should be discharged for poor
work performance and of employees who were anti-CWA.
I likewise find incredible the testimony of Nishimura, who
was present at many of the discussions Consigli held with
employees about union matters, that he had no knowledge
as to which employees were for or against a union.19
Further, I find without merit the Respondent's contentions
that these terminations were part of the pattern of constant
turnover among its employees, and the fact it did not
discharge some of the employees named by Pape and
Lockwood as prounion shows that the discharges in issue
were not discriminatory.20
It is apparent from the totality of the evidence, and I
find, that the Respondent elicited from Pape and Lock-
wood the names of the prounion employees; that these
names included Cowf, DeLutio, Dooley, and Tnnka; and
that the Respondent discharged these four employees
because it "was plainly determined to rid itself immediately
of the Union element within its work force,"21 to affect the
results of the pending election,22 and to penalize those who
had initiated, organized, or supported a union among the
Respondent's employees.23 Accordingly, I find that the
Respondent discharged Trinka on November 3, Cowf and
Dooley on November 17, and DeLutio on November 24,
1972, in order to discourage union membership and
activity, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section 1, above, have a close,
20 N L R B v W C Nabors Company, 196 F 2d 272, 276 (CA 5), cert
denied 344 U S. 865, Elm Hill Meats of Owensboro, Inc, supra, Carbide
Tools, Incorporated 205 NLRB No 61
21 Waterways Harbor Investment Co, Inc, 179 NLRB 452.
22 Carbide Tools, Incorporated, supra
23 N L R B. v West Coast Casket Co.. 469 F.2d 871 (C A 9, 1972); Elm
Hill Meats of Owensboro, Inc, supra, Carbide Tools, Incorporated supra
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I find it is necessary that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair
labor practices found and from in any other manner
infringing upon its employees' Section 7 nghts,24 and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. I shall also recommend that nothing
contained in the recommended Order shall be construed as
requiring the Respondent to revoke any wage increases or
other employee benefits previously granted.25
As I have found that the Respondent discnminatonly
discharged Trinka on November 3, Cowf and Dooley on
November 17, and DeLutio on November 24, 1972,26 the
Respondent will be ordered to offer each of these
employees reinstatement to his former job, or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and to make each of these employees whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis,
plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent , Communication Systems Con-
struction , Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union 25, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO , and Communication Work-
ers of America , District 1 , AFL-CIO , are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees about their union mem-
bership , activities , and sympathies , and those of other
employees ; by maintaining surveillance over the union and
concerted activities of its employees ; by promising and
granting benefits to induce employees to refrain from
union membership or activities ; by threatening employees
with reprisals because of their union membership or
activities ; and by other conduct interfering with , restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights , the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discharging Trinka on November 3, Cowf and
24 N L R B v Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S 416, 437, N L R B
v. Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C A 4)
25 Exchange Parts Co, 375 U S 405 (1964); Scott Gross Company, Inc,
197 NLRB 420, enfd . 477 F 2d 64 (C A. 6, 1973)
28 Any variances in the record as to the dates of discharge may be
resolved at the compliance stage of this proceeding, or, if agreement is not
reached in this matter, in a backpay proceeding See International Chemical
Dooley on November 17, and DeLutio on November 24,
1972, in order to discourage union membership or
activities, the Respondent has discriminated against
employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment and their terms and conditions of employment, and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
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:
ORDER27
The Respondent, Communication Systems Construction,
Inc., Huntington Station, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union member-
ship, activities, and sympathies, and those of other
employees; maintaining surveillance over the union and
concerted activities of its employees; promising and
granting benefits to induce employees to refrain from
union membership or activities; threatening employees
with reprisals because of their union membership or
activities; or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except that
nothing contained herein shall be construed as requiring
the Respondent to revoke any wage increases or other
employee benefits previously granted.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or their terms or conditions of employment in order to
discourage union membership or activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Cowf, DeLutio, Dooley, and Trinka immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
(b) Make Cowf, DeLutio, Dooley, and Tnnka whole for
any loss of pay each of them may have suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under
the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its operation at Huntington Station, New
Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, 200 NLRB No. 55
27 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A."28 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the consolidated
complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of
the Act not specifically found herein.
28 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
union membership, activities, and sympathies, and
those of other employees; maintain surveillance over
the union and concerted activities of employees;
promise and grant benefits to induce employees to
refrain from union membership or activities; threaten
employees with reprisals because of their union
membership or activities; or in any other manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
661
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, except that nothing
contained herein shall be construed as requiring us to
revoke any wage increases or other employee benefits
previously granted.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or their terms or conditions of employ-
ment in order to discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of Local Union 25, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, or Communica-
tion Workers of America, District 1, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL offer Donald Cowf, Edward Dooley,
Robert DeLutio, and Richard Trinka immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and WE WILL make whole the employees
listed above for any loss of pay each of them may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
Dated By
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 16
Court Street-Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11241,
Telephone 212-596-3535.