Customer Control, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1726 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisors , applicants for employment , or persons doing business with Sperry
during the course of a strike against it by blocking entrances with formations of
pickets, by rocking and damaging automobiles of employees and other persons
crossing the picket line, by assaulting or otherwise molesting these employees and
persons and threatening them with physical injury , by placing tacks or nails
in driveways to puncture tires of automobiles entering the plant , by threatening
supervisors with physical injury for taking pictures of strike activities, or by
threatening and assaulting persons who apply for or accept employment during
the strike.
WE WILL NOT by like or related conduct restrain or coerce the employees of the
Sperry Rubber & Plastics Company in the exercise by them of the right of self-
organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection and to refrain from any or all such activities.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS , AFL-CIO, AND ITS AGENT
ROBERT J. DANCKERT,
Labor Organization.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO , LOCAL UNION
905, AND ITS AGENTS, JOHNIE LOCKE, ALBERT
Cox, LEE ROY KING, AND NEAL REECE,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- --- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Customer Control , Inc. and District 65, Retail , Wholesale and
Department Store Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-7986.
December 29, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 18, 1961, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this pro-
134 NLRB No. 170.
CUSTOMER CONTROL, INC. 1727
ceeding, and hereby adopts the findings , ' conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.2
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner,
with the following additional provision 2(d) : "Notify the Regional
Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply with the Order." s
' As background to this case , the Trial Examiner refers to an earlier case ( Case No.
2-CA-7657 ) in which the Trial Examiner therein found that Respondent had violated
Section 8 ( a) (1), (3), and ( 5) of the Act . In a Decision and Order issued October 31,
1961, the Board sustained the violations alleged In that earlier proceeding ( 133 NLRB
1649).
2 We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Intermediate Report which
does not affect the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions , and recommendations, or our
agreement therewith : Holender testified that he taught Leo Salyanon to run "backs" in
less than a day, rather than in 3 days as stated in the Intermediate Report.
" In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as the Appendix , the following sen-
tence is hereby inserted after the sentence , beginning "This notice must remain posted. . . ,"
which appears at the foot of the page : "Employees may communicate directly with the
Board 's Regional Office ( 745 Fifth Avenue, New York 22, New York ; telephone number
PLaza 1-5500 ) If they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 29 U.S. Code, Section 151 et seq . (herein called the Act), with all parties repre-
sented, was heard before Lee J. Best, the duly designated Trial Examiner, at New
York, New York, on September 6, 7, and 8 , 1961, upon a complaint issued by the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein separately desig-
nated as General Counsel and the Board ) and the answer filed thereto by Customer
Control, Inc ., herein called the Respondent . The principal issues litigated were
whether the Respondent on or after April 26 , 1961 , ( 1) interfered with , restrained, or
coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; (2) discriminated in regard to the hire
or tenure of employment of George Losgar (employee ) to discourage membership in
a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act; and (3) discharged,
failed to reemploy , or otherwise discriminated against said employee because he has
given testimony under the Act, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
All parties were represented by counsel, afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
introduce evidence pertinent to the issues involved , to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , to argue orally upon the record , and to file written briefs with the Trial
Examiner , all of which have been given due consideration.
From observation of the witnesses , and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Customer Control, Inc., is a New York corporation having its principal office and
place of business at 5 Court Square , Borough of Queens, Long Island City 1, New
York, where at all times pertinent herein it was engaged in the business of preparing,
printing, and circulating commercial advertising for automobile dealers throughout
the United States, and furnishing related services incident thereto such as mailing,
research , statistical, promotional , followup, etc. During its fiscal year from April 30,
1959, to May 1, 1960, the gross receipts of Respondent were approximately $200,000
of which $150,000 was derived from contract customers outside the State of New
York. During the fiscal year 1960-61 gross receipts amounted to $181,000 of
1728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which $136,000 1 was derived from contract customers outside said State. I find,
therefore, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, existing in whole or part
for the purpose of representing employees in dealing with employers concerning
grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , and conditions
of work.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Services furnished by Customer Control, Inc.
The Respondent operates a customer control system consisting of (a) supervision
and maintenance of its plant facilities, (b) necessary forms for services furnished,
(c) sales promotion counsel , (d) copy service, (e) maintenance of mailing lists, and
(f) postage . It enters into automatically renewable annual contracts with auto-
mobile dealers, subject to termination upon notice of 60 days prior to the annual
expiration date, by which it agrees to send out five mailing pieces during the year to
a list of automobile owners furnished by the dealer. Each dealer is also required
to furnish dates showing the last service purchase by each of the listed owners, and
monthly thereafter to report a list of such owners that come in for service. The rate
charged by Respondent for its services is determined according to a graded schedule
based upon the total number of automobile owners to whom the mailing pieces are
sent.
Typical products furnished by the Respondent are printed mailing pieces, 9 by 12
inches in size, produced by pressmen in the printing shop. Color work and designs
on these mailing pieces are performed by contractors outside the shop of the Re-
spondent. All punted matter thereon is performed in the pressroom of Respondent.
Printed matter on the front side of the sheet (herein called fronts) usually consists of
messages to prospective customers along with the letterhead of the dealer in black
type. The back side of the sheet consists of printing in colors, accurately spaced be-
tween designs and according to service specifications, and requires more skill than
the spacing, locking, and inking operations on the front sheet. When folded in
pamphlet form the latter operations appear as inside sheets, but in printing parlance
are called the backs. Such work is produced by the Respondent on a Kluge ribbon
or horizontal printing press and on a Miehle vertical press.
B. Supervisory hierarchy in the plant
Respondent is a so-called one-man corporation owned and operated by Victor
Contessa, who designates himself as president, but in fact functions as the sole
corporate official. Prior to death, his mother (Angelina Contessa) was secretary
of the corporation, but no other corporate official has since been appointed. Victor
Contessa controls the entire business, but at all times pertinent to this case employed
three assistants: (1) Jean Erhardt (office secretary), (2) Andrew Meo (production
manager), and (3) Casimer Holender 2 (foreman of the printing shop), each of
whom I find to be supervisors or agents of the Respondent within the meaning of
Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act. The business operations are organized into
three separate and distinct divisions: (1) office administration, (2) shipping or mail-
ing department, and (3) the printing shop.
In the absence of Victor Contessa himself, Jean Erhardt has been in charge of the
office for the past 7 years, handles correspondence, bank accounts, incoming bills,
payrolls, job tickets for processing, credit accounts, and all other office routine. She
is the confidential secretary of Victor Contessa, and keeps him informed concerning
all administrative affairs of the business, but does not have authority to hire and fire
employees without first consulting Mr. Contessa. Contessa is absent approximately
2 or 3 days each week to engage in outside interests. I find Erhardt to be an agent
of the corporation with respect to matters of administration within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act. I further find that such authority exercised by her is not
of a merely routine or clerical nature , but requires the use of independent judgment.
Andrew Meo is classified as production manager in charge of shipping and posting
the mailing pieces produced in the printing shop. He expedites all work performed
1 This outflow consists of printed materials valued at $15,000 plus services incident
thereto valued at $121,000.
2 Also called Charlie or Charles Hollander.
CUSTOMER CONTROL, INC. 1729
in the printing shop, and works therein part time as a pressman. He supervises a
group of typists and IBM operators in the mailing process, and makes certain entries
on the job tickets sent from the office by Erhardt. Completed work from the printing
shop is delivered to Meo for final processing and mailing. He is admittedly a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act. -
Casimer Holender was first employed by the Respondent in March or April 1960,
and, after a brief period of absence, was rehired about November 1960. His back-
ground indicates considerable education and experience in the printing business dating
back to 1935, consisting of setting type, operating presses, cutting paper, bookbinding,
and offset and composition work. He was appointed foreman in the pressroom or
printing shop of the Respondent in mid-April 1961 to succeed Foreman Frank Jenik.
From the date of such appointment he has admittedly been a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act.
C. Events prior to April 1960
Clerical employees of the Respondent consist of typists, inserters, and IBM opera-
tors in the office and mailing departments. Some are regularly employed and others
work on a part-time basis for an hourly wage. Strictly speaking, Respondent's
production employees consist only of pressmen working in the printing shop. The
foreman performs work as a pressmen in addition to his supervisory duties. Re-
spondent also employs traveling salesmen to procure and service its contracts with
automobile dealers throughout the several States. Job tickets available for process-
ing in the printing shop are the key to Respondent's volume of production. During
the 60-day period, September-October 1960, more than 260 job tickets were
processed and completed, but thereafter followed a decline in the volume of work.
During January-February 4961, Respondent processed 128 job tickets; 171 during
March-April; 132 during May-June; and during July-August 1961 only 62 job tickets
were completed. Because of this perceptible decline in work orders, the Respondent
justifiably sought ways and means to reduce its overhead expenses.
In October 1960, Respondent was employing as pressmen in its printing shop
Foreman Frank Jenik, Rubin Silverberg, James Malloy, and George Losgar. The
three last named signed union cards on or about October 24, 1960, authorizing
District 65 to represent them for ,the purposes of collective bargaining. On Octo-
ber 27, 1960, representatives of the Union called to see President Contessa, de-
manded recognition, and proposed to negotiate a written agreement on behalf of the
pressmen. Contessa expressed doubts that the Union represented a majority, where-
upon the three pressmen were called to the office, and thereupon acknowledged
that they had joined the Union; but Mr. Contessa delayed such recognition for the
avowed purpose of consulting his attorney and giving the matter further considera-
tion. Rubin Silverberg was laid off at the end of that working day. After the
union representatives left his office, President Contessa admittedly recalled Malloy
and Losgar for interrogation concerning their activities on behalf of the Union.
After dismissing Malloy, he discussed the subject further with Losgar. At that time,
Mr. Contessa expressed surprise that Losgar had joined the Union, asserted that it
was not a suitable union for pressmen, and inquired what benefits he expected to
get therefrom. Thereafter, James Malloy was permanently laid off on or about
November 4, 1960.3 At the same time, Losgar was laid off for 1 day. Thereafter,
on or about November 15, 1960, in the absence of President Contessa, Erhardt
called Losgar into the office and importuned him to quit the Union Thereupon,
Miss Erhardt dialed the office of Western Union Telegraph Company over her office
telephone, and at her suggestion George Losgar dictated his resignation by telegram
to the Union at the expense of the Respondent. After a conference with repre-
sentatives of the Union later that evening, however, he withdrew the resignation,
and continued his membership therein. The foregoing conduct of the Respondent
occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of a charge in the instant case, and
will therefore be considered only as background information herein.
D. Termination of George Losgar
Prior to his initial employment by the Respondent in January 1957, George Losgar
had for a period of 3 years worked as a pressman for American Lending Library
at College Point, New York. When first hired by the Respondent, he was assigned
to the processing of backs with a Miehle vertical press for a period of 2 months
8 The layoffs of Silverberg and Malloy and other alleged violations are now at issue in
Case No 2-CA-7657 and pending before the Board on exceptions to the Intermediate
Report of Trial Examiner Bott
630849-62-v of 134-110
1730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under the instruction of Pressman Dan Brown, but in March 1957 was transferred
to the processing of letterheads, etc., on the outside sheet or fronts of the mailing
pieces with a Kluge horizontal press. The processing of backs was considered a
more difficult job, and commanded a somewhat higher wage and skill. In Febru-
ary 1959 Losgar quit working for the Respondent to care for his sick wife, but was
rehired by Foreman Frank Jenik in February 1960 at an increased salary of $75 per
week. Thereafter, he was again assigned to the processing of letterheads or fronts,
but also performed miscellaneous jobs in the printing shop such as taking proofs,
making up forms, locking up the forms, moving stock, etc. In the latter part of
1960, the Respondent laid off Silverberg and Malloy, rehired Casimer Holender, and
thereby reduced the printing shop complement to three pressmen (Foreman Frank
Jenik, Casimer Holender, and George Losgar). In January 1961 the Respondent
admittedly proposed to also lay off George Losgar, but was advised by its attorney
not to do so, because of the pending hearing in Case No. 2-CA-7657. Thereafter,
Losgar testified at said hearing on January 19, 1961, as a witness for the General
Counsel, and the hearing was closed on February 15, 1961. Concurrently there-
with, the Respondent temporarily laid off Losgar on February 3, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23,
and 24, 1961, for alleged lack of work, and continued to do so on March 9, 10, 13,
16, 17, 27, 31, and on April 3, 10, 12, and 24, 1961, for the same reason. This was
the first time Losgar had been denied full-time employment, except for 1 day in
November 1960. Foreman Frank Jenik was discharged on March 31, 1961, thereby
reducing the printing shop complement to two pressmen (Holender and Losgar).
Thereupon, the Respondent offered the job of pressroom foreman to Production
Manager Andrew Meo, but he declined to accept that position. Thereupon, Casimer
Holender was appointed foreman to succeed Frank Jenik. Finally, on April 26,
1961, George Losgar was laid off indefinitely by Production Manager Andrew Meo,
and told to call up the office on Thursday, May 4, 1961, with respect to further
employment.
George Losgar credibly testified in substance that at noontime on April 26, 1961,
Andrew Meo related to him a conversation had with Mr. Contessa in which he
(Meo) had proposed to keep Losgar at work, and maybe persuade him to quit the
Union, but Contessa replied that "Losgar couldn't be trusted, because he quit the
Union once, and then went back with them again." 4 This recital of a conference
between a supervisor and his superior will not be found herein to be an independent
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, but nevertheless demonstrates the motive
of Respondent in laying off George Losgar at the end of that working day.
George Losgar called the office of Respondent on May 4, 1961, as directed, and
was told by Erhardt that there was no work for him, and that Contessa was pre-
paring to close down the plant for 2 weeks. Nevertheless, Respondent, on May 7,
1961, placed a want-ad in the Sunday edition of the New York Journal American
for another pressman, and in answer thereto Leo Salyanon was hired on or about
May 15, 1961. Losgar himself called Mr. Contessa in response to this want-ad, but
was told that the position had already been filled. George Losgar again called the
office of Respondent on May 11, 1961, and requested Erhardt to call Andrew Meo to
the telephone. After waiting a few minutes someone in the office hung up the
receiver, and this telephone call was never completed. Thereafter, Losgar went to
the office of Respondent on May 25, 4961, in company with Rubin Silverberg and
James Malloy to request employment pursuant to the Intermediate Report of Trial
Examiner Bott in Case No. 2-CA-7657. They first talked to Production Manager
Meo, who disclaimed any knowledge thereof. They awaited the arrival of Erhardt
and made the same request of her, but she ordered them to get out, locked the door,
and pulled down the shade. Thereafter, George Losgar again called the office of
Respondent on June 1, 1961; was told by Erhardt that there was no work available;
and that Mr. Contessa was having the worked farmed out. Thus ended the efforts of
this employee to obtain further employment with the Respondent, and the charge
in this case was filed on June 2, 19-61.
E. Contentions of Respondent
It is contended by the Respondent that its business was on the verge of bankruptcy,
and that prior to the layoff of George Losgar it had already laid off five other em-
ployees to reduce overhead expenses, including Foreman Jenik; thereafter in May
1961 also laid off Ethel Grant (a clerical worker) and Robert Neuser (a salesman);
and suspended the employment of all employees, except Andrew Meo, for an unpaid
vacation of 1 week in the latter part of that month. It does not appear, however,
that any work was farmed out.
* I do not credit testimony of Andrew Meo and Victor Contessa denying that such
conversation took place.
CUSTOMER CONTROL, IN C. 1731
Having reduced its complement of pressmen to Casimer Holender and George
Losgar, it is contended by the Respondent that only Holender was capable of
processing the backs, because Losgar was unskilled in that type.of work. Conse-
quently, when Holender•was promoted to foreman and assigned to other duties such
as cutting paper stock into appropriate sizes for mailing pieces, and also cleaning
up a surplus stock of old metal for sale, Respondent deemed it necessary to hire
another pressman to process the backs. Rather than recall Losgar to work, it hired
Salyanon and assigned him to that job, thereby eliminating any need for the services
of Losgar, because all work previously performed by him could then be performed
by the foreman with occasional assistance from Andrew Meo. In any event, Re-
spondent also contends that the severe decline in work orders had reduced available
work in the printing shop to a minimum, that.its bank account was overdrawn, and
the business was threatened with bankruptcy.
Concluding Findings
From the entire record in this case, there can be no doubt that the business of
Respondent was and is in a critical financial condition.. Under the circumstances,
however, such a situation fails to furnish the true motive for selecting George Losgar
for permanent layoff or discharge. ^ The new pressman hired by the Respondent had
no prior experience in processing backs, but was taught by Foreman Holender to
perform that type of work in a period of 3 days. The record shows that his general
experience as a pressman did not exceed that of George Losgar, and the Respondent
had no sufficient reason to assume at the time of his hiring that the efficiency of
Salyanon in performing general work in the printing shop, or in processing backs,
would exceed that of Losgar, if given the opportunity to demonstrate his capabilities.
It is clear that Respondent gave Losgar no consideration whatever. Losgar's record
as an employee had been good, and there is no evidence of complaints by the Re-
spondent prior to his membership in the Union. Even Foreman Holender admitted
that Losgar was capable of learning to process backs, but somewhat inconsistently
voiced the opinion that it would take a year to teach him to do the job. I am
therefore convinced, and find that the aforesaid contentions of the Respondent are
and were a mere pretext to get rid of the last remaining member of the Union in its
plant to discourage membership in a labor organization, and because he gave testi-
mony under the Act as a witness for the General Counsel of the Board in Case No.
2-CA-7657.
I find, therefore, that Respondent -discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure
of employment of George Losgar (employee) to discourage membership in a labor
organization, and because he gave testimony under the Act, within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, which have been
found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial 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 and is engaging in unfair labor
practices by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of George
Losgar (employee) to discourage membership in a labor organization, and because
he gave testimony under the Act; and further finding that such conduct is interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees of the Respondent in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, it will be recommended that the Re-
spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. -
It will be recommended that Respondent offer to George Losgar (employee)
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,5
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges of employment,
discharging if necessary any other person hired by the Respondent to replace him
since April 26, 1961, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of such discrimination by the payment of a sum of money equal to that
6 See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
1732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which he would have earned as salary or wages from the date of his discriminatory
layoff or discharge on April 26, 1961, to the date occurring 5 days after the Re-
spondent shall offer him proper reinstatement , as herein provided, less net earnings 6
to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami,
Inc., 344 U.S. 344. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon
the backpay liability for any other such period. By reason of the recurring nature
of conduct heretofore engaged in by the Respondent, demonstrating its hostility
toward the principles of collective bargaining, which the Act is designed to protect,
and the likelihood that such conduct may be continued unless effectively restrained, it
will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing
upon the rights of its employees to self -organization , to form , join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement 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-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George
Losgar (employee) to discourage membership in District 65 (a labor organization)
and because he gave testimony under the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (4)
of the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Customer Control, Inc., its offi-
cers, agents, supervisors, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Discharging or laying off any employee because he has given testimony under
the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees,
or otherwise infringing upon their exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer George Losgar (employee) immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges of employment, discharging, if necessary, any person
hired to replace him since April 26, 1961, and make him whole in the manner set
forth in "The Remedy" section of this Intermediate Report.
(b) Preserve and upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records required to analyze, com-
pute, and determine the amount of backpay and other rights of employment to
which George Losgar (employee) may be entitled under the terms and conditions
set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Intermediate Report.
(c) Post at and in its printing shop and principal business office in Long Island
City, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 7 Copies
6 See Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498.
7 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision
and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial
SOUTHWESTERN PORCELAIN STEEL CORPORATION 1733
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region , shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Customer Control, Inc.,
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it
for 60 days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other
material.
Examiner" In the notice . In the further event the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree
of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to
a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in District 65, Retail, Wholesale and
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization , by dis-
criminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT lay off , discharge , or otherwise discriminate against any
employee because he has given testimony under the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees,
or otherwise infringe upon their exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form , join, or assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection , or to refrain from any or all of such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement 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-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer to George Losgar (employee ) immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him, and will
make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination
in regard to his hire or tenure of employment.
All of our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members of the above -named or any other labor organization , subject
to the limitations provided in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
CUSTOMER CONTROL, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
Southwestern Porcelain Steel Corporation and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO . Case No. 16-CA-1412. Decem-
ber 29, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 1, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
134 NLRB No. 168.