Cut and Curl, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 31, 1977227 N.L.R.B. 1869 (N.L.R.B. 1977) Copy Citation CUT AND CURL, INC. Cut and Curl, Inc . and Beauty Culturists & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB, International Industrial Production Employees Union . Case 29- CA-4956 January 31, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS , PENELLO, AND WALTHER On November 24, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Cut and Curl, Inc., Jericho, New York, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on August 10, 1976,1 pursuant to a charge filed on April 12 by Beauty Culturists & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB, International Industrial Production Employees Union (herein referred to as the Union) and a complaint issued on May 28. The complaint, amended at the hearing, alleges that Cut and Curl , Inc. (herein referred to as the Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the bargaining unit. I All dates referred to are in 1976 unless otherwise stated. 2 The Charging Party did not submit a brief. 3 Unless otherwise indicated , the findings are based upon the pleadings, stipulations , and undisputed evidence contained in the record which I credit. 4 Previous names used by the Union in its bargaining relationship with 227 NLRB No. 273 1869 Respondent in its answer, filed on June 28, and amended at the hearing, denies having violated the Act. Its defense, asserted at the hearing, was it had a "good faith doubt" that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. The issues involved are whether Respondent had a reasonable doubt based on objective considerations for believing the Union had lost its majority status; and whether the Respondent, by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union, thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon- dent 2 I hereby make the following: 3 FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a New York corporation, with its headquar- ters located at Jericho, New York, is engaged in business and operates, through wholly owned subsidiaries, certain beauty salons, both inside and outside the State of New York, including three separate stores located at Hempstead, Amityville, and Astoria, New York. During the last fiscal year Respondent's gross sales from its operations exceeded $1 million, and during the 12-month period preceding May 28, a representative period, Respondent purchased and received goods and materials , valued in excess of $50,000, which were delivered to its stores in interstate commerce directly from States other than the States in which those stores are located. Respondent admits, and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that the Beauty Culturists & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB, International Industrial Production Employees Union, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Bargaining Unit Since September 1961, the Union 4 has been the collec- tive-bargaining representative of and has had successive collective-bargaining agreements with the Respondent covering certain of its employees. The unit description contained in their most recent collective-bargaining agreement, which expired on March 31, included "the employees of the Employer, excluding receptionists, managers , and assistant managers ." It cov- ered those employees employed at stores located at Ridge- the Respondent include Beauty Cultunsts Union Local 150A-B; Beauty Cultunsts' Union, Local 150A; Beauty Culturists Union, Local 1551-A, J.B H.C . P., International Union of America, AFL-CIO; and Beauty Cultunsts Union, Local 1045A, J.B.H C.P., International Union of America, AFL-CIO. 1870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wood, Forest Hills, Flushing, Amityville, Hempstead, Astoria, Jackson Heights, and Green Acres, New York. However, only the employees of three stores, namely, those located at Amityville, Astoria, and Hempstead presently remain in the bargaining unit. The other stores located at Ridgewood, Forest Hills, Flushing, Jackson Heights, and Green Acres have either been closed, sold, or became franchised operations .5 The amended complaint alleged the unit as follows: All employees of the Respondent employed as Amity- ville, Astoria, and Hempstead Stores, excluding recep- tionists , managers and assistant managers and supervi- sors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The Respondent while agreeing with the unit description denied the allegations on the grounds it contained conclu- sions of law. Agreements between parties on the appropriateness of the unit have long been accepted by the Board which gives them broad latitude in reaching such agreements that will not be disturbed absent a showing that the exclusion or inclusion of certain employees contravenes the Act or established Board policy. Harvey Russell, 145 NLRB 1486 (1964). Since the bargaining unit alleged was agreed to by the parties and does not contravene the Act or established Board policy, I find that the unit as described in the amended complaint constitutes a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. B. The Union's Demands for Bargaining and Respondent's Refusals The Respondent notified the Union, by letters dated January 19, in pertinent part as follows: We believe that you no longer represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit defined in the said contract. Under the circumstances , we hereby notify you that we cannot negotiate any extension or renewal of our said contract without appropriate certification by the Na- tional Labor Relations Board and we shall consider our said contract to be terminated as of the 31st day of March, 1976. The Union, which admittedly made no attempt thereafter to prove its majority status, informed the Respondent by letter dated January 28 that it wished to meet for the purpose of negotiating a new contract for the employees of the Amityville, Astoria, Hempstead, and Ridgewood 5 The Forest Hills and Flushing stores were closed about 1973 and on or about December 31 , 1975, respectively ; the Ridgewood store was sold on or about March 1, 1976, and the Jackson Heights and Green Acres stores are franchised operations 6 Prior to sending the letter Respondent had consulted with Counsel 7 The Ridgewood store , as previously noted, was subsequently sold on or about March I stores 7 and requested the Respondent to advise it when they could meet for that purpose. On February 6, in response to the Union's letter, the Respondent sent the Union a letter referring again to its January 19 letter, enclosing a copy, and further stated in pertinent part, as follows: We cannot and will not negotiate with you in respect thereof until your status as the representative of a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit defined therein is established. On March 5, the Union by letter renewed its request that Respondent meet for the purpose of negotiating a new contract and enclosed copies of its proposals for a new contract. The Respondent did not reply to the Union's renewed demands and has not met with it for the purpose of negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement. C. Respondent's Defense The Respondent, in support of its defense that it had what it considered a "good faith doubt" of the Union's majority status, submitted certain evidence relating to the lack of representation by the Union; employees' dissatisfac- tion with the Union; and employee turnover in the unit. Marvin Hartman, who was employed by the Respondent from December 1972 until June 27, held the positions of supervisor and director of operations which included handling its labor relations. Bob Tartamella8 formerly held the position of secretary-treasurer of the Union. Following a union meeting held in late 1974 or early 1975, Tartamella informed Hartman that he was disap- pointed at the small turnout for the meeting. About September or October 1975, Tartamella informed the Respondent by letter9 that the Union would not seek backpayments for moneys due on the welfare and pension benefits for those employees who were not in the Union, but stated it wanted to keep up to date on those employees joining the Union. The reasons given by Tartamella was because he was lax in signing up employees or that the Respondent was lax. Two documents were offered as evidence. One docu- ment,10 dated January 15, 1975, provides, as follows: THE TIME HAS COME FOR US TO TALK STRAIGHT FROM THE SHOULDER. A meeting notice was sent out to each and every member who was affected by the expiration of our Contract with your employer. March 30, 1975. We urged each and every one of you to attend this very important meeting. b Bob Tartamella did not testify. 9 The letter itself, which the Union did not deny sending, could not be located. i° According to Hartman , one of the operators , whom he did not identify, gave him the document. CUT AND CURL, INC. We know that the weather was bad but that's no excuse not to attend this very important meeting. Our thanks to the people who did attend just enough to have a quorum. We honestly don't believe that the bad weather was the real reason you did not attend. We believe you just don't give a dam! You are doing dust the thing that your employer's want-that is to do away with the Union. Well, let me give you my personal opinion. I'm sick and tired, after 12 1 /2 years of fighting for better benefits for people who don't care-I will still fight for those who do care. If you personally don't care to have the union represent you after the Contract runs out, just fill out the form below to that effect. If you still want to continue and not lose the benefits that you have, such as Holiday, Vacation, Commission, G.H.I., $25.00 per day while you are in the hospital, seniority, etc., etc.-fill out the form below. At the meeting held on January 13, 1975, a motion was made that your Union Representatives contact you individually and discuss the new benefits for the new Contract, and then sit with your employer to meet your demands, and to get your employer to sign a new Contract. These are the new demands: RAISE IN SALARY RAISE IN COMMISSION MORE HOLIDAYS MORE VACATION BLUE CROSS G.H.I. INCREASED BENEFITS G.H.I. DENTAL Please fill in and sign your name and send back to us immediately. David Grossman, President S. Tartamella, Secretary-Treasurer I do want the Union [ ] I do not want the Union [ ] Your signature must accompany your vote, whether you vote Yes or No. Signature The other document consisted of a letter dated February 17 which the Union sent to the unit employees. This letter informed the employees that notice had been sent to the Respondent about negotiating a new contract, that a union 11 Hartman was unable to establish the dates of these conversations except that some occurred right after September 1975 when the Union signed up new members. 1871 meeting had been scheduled for March 2 for the employees to discuss the Union's contract proposals, which were enclosed, and urged their attendance at the meeting. The letter also included a pertinent part in the following language: We want all of you to know that our International, which has just taken over this Local has taken a lot of time and has studied the situation which exists in your shops. We found that in the past there had been a complacent attitude by both the union and its members and therefore the only one gaining by this complacent attitude was the employer. This attitude on the part of the Union and its members must be corrected immedi- ately and we intend to do so, to the best of our ability. Your cooperation is most necessary in order to fully overcome that complacent attitude. At this time you have the opportunity to be properly represented and to obtain the benefits which are so long overdue for you by a proper union contract. This contract will give you the benefits, the security, and peace of mind to which you are entitled. It is long overdue that the beauty parlor industry be properly represented and this is your opportunity to benefit and stop letting management take advantage of you. Now is the time to do this by attending this meeting and letting your voice be heard. The Union also represented employees of other employ- ers besides the Respondent. According to Director Hartman, between November 15, 1975, and January 15,11 two employees at the Amityville store and one or two employees at the Astoria store told him they did not want to belong to the Union and did not want to pay dues for belonging to the Union anymore. Except for recalling that the first name of one of those employees at the Amityville store was Valarie, Hartman could not otherwise identify those employees . Hartman also stated that during the same period four employees at the Hempstead store, namely, Jo Anne Tricario, Kathleen Quigley, Mary McGee, and Barbara Boyce told him they were not going to get anything from the Union and they just did not want to belong to it. Although all four of these employees are still employed by the Respondent, only Tricaria testified as a witness for the Respondent. Tricario, who was hired in May 1973 but did not join the Union until September 1975, after being told by three unidentified union representatives she would have to join or be discharged,12 testified in 1976 she asked Director Hartman why they had to join and said she did not want to be a member of the Union because they were not doing anything for them and were just taking out dues. Tricano also heard McGee and Quigley tell Hartman they were just taking out dues and they were not really getting anything for it. 12 The collective-bargammg agreement contain umon-secunty provisions requiring employees to become union members or be discharged. 1872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD According to Hartman, he had also heard from the operators, prior to September 1975, that the union represen- tatives only visited the stores once or twice a year.13 With respect to employee turnover, while Hartman estimated the average length of employment for operators and shampooers at Respondent's stores was about 3 years, no records were offered to support this estimation by Hartman, who had only started work for the Respondent in December 1972. Respondent records did show that during January, when the Union demanded bargaining, there was a total of approximately 16 employees in the bargaining unit em- ployed at the Amityville, Hempstead, and Astoria stores. Two of them 14 were hired by the Respondent prior to its recognition of the Union in September 1961, and six employees 15 were employed by the Respondent prior to the execution of the extension of the last collective-bargaming agreement on April 29, 1972. Gerald Lasky, who was trustee of the Union and president of International Industrial Production Employees Union, became involved in the relationship between the Respondent and the Union in September 1975. According to Lasky, during his participation in the Union, it enforced the collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent by such means as giving out pension plans when due, provid- ing a medical center for the employees, and collecting checkoffs from the Respondent, and the Union's represen- tatives visited the stores obtaining membership and autho- rization cards from the employees.16 While Lasky also contended grievances were processed concerning the unit employees, the evidence faded to establish any were processed between September 15, 1975, and Respondent's January 19 letter to the Union. D. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated Section 8(axl) and (5) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the bargaining representative of the unit employees, while Respondent denies having violated the Act and asserts as its defense a "good faith doubt" of the Union's majority status whereby its refusal to bargain was not unlawful. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, while Section 8(aX5) of the Act prohibits an employer from refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of its employees. The test to be applied 17 where an employer seeks to withdraw recognition from an established bargaining representative is set forth in Terrell Machine Company 18 as follows: 13 Neither the identity of the operators nor the dates of such alleged conversations were established 11 Their names were Leonard Custa and Chester Lockett 15 These included Leonard Custa, Chester Lockett, Anna O'Neil, Barbara Boyce , George Camacho, and Maria Velez 16 Lasky testified all of the employees in the unit had executed checkoff authorization cards to the Union prior to the expiration of the collective- bargaining agreement It is well settled that a certified union, upon expira- tion of the first year following its certification, enjoys a rebuttable presumption that its majority representative status continues . This presumption is designed to promote stability in collective-bargaining relationships, without impairing the free choice of employees. Accord- ingly, once the presumption is shown to be operative, a prima facie case is established that an employer is obligated to bargain and that its refusal to do so would be unlawful. The prima facie case may be rebutted if the employer affirmatively establishes either (1) that at the time of the refusal the union in fact no longer enjoyed majority representative status ; or (2) that the employer's refusal was predicated on a good-faith and reasonably grounded doubt of the union's continued majority status. As to the second of these, i.e., "good faith doubt," two prerequisites for sustaining the defense are that the asserted doubt must be based on objective considerations and it must not have been advanced for the purpose of gaining time in which to undermine the union . [This second point means , in effect, the assertion of doubt must be raised "in a context free of unfair labor practices." ] This test is equally applicable where, as here, the Union has been recognized as the bargaining representative of Respondent's employees without a Board certification.19 Under the law, the existence of a prior contract, lawful on its face, raises presumptions that the Union was the majority representative at the time the contract was executed and a presumption that its majority continued at least through the life of such a contract. Following expiration of the contract, that presumption continues and, though rebuttable, the burden of rebutting it rests on the party who would do so.20 The effect of such presumption renders an employer's refusal to bargain prima facie unlawful, unless refuted by the employer affirmatively establishing certain grounds for its refusal. Wald Transfer & Storage Co., 218 NLRB 592 (1975). Applying these principles to the instant case the evidence, supra, establishes that, since September 1961, the Union has represented the unit employees and has had successive collective-bargaining agreements with the Respondent covering them including the period in January when the Respondent first questioned the Union's majority status and admittedly refused to negotiate a new collective- bargaining agreement until the Union was certified by the National Labor Relations Board. Therefore, a rebuttable presumption existed that the Union continued to represent a majority of the employees in the unit and, unless refuted by applying the test set forth supra, Respondent's admitted refusal to bargain with the Union, as requested, constituted a prima facie unlawful refusal to bargain. The presumption 17 See Dalewood Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc, d/b/a Golden State Habilita- tion Convalescent Center, 224 NLRB 1618 (1976). 18 173 NLRB 1480 (1969), enfd. 427 F.2d 1088 (C.A. 4, 1970) 19 See Bartenders, Hotel Motel and Restaurant Employers Bargaining Association of Pocatello, Idaho and its Employer-Members, 213 NLRB 651 (1974). 20 Dalewood Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Golden State Habilitation Convalescent Center, cited supra. CUT AND CURL, INC. 1873 of the Union's majority status having been established, the Respondent's burden was to show at the time of its refusal to bargain that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees21 or that it had a reasonable doubt, based upon objective considerations, for believing the Union had lost the majority status. Respondent's evidence, proffered to establish its doubt of the Union's majority status, consisted of a statement by a union representative that a turnout for a union meeting held a year previously was small; statements by unidentifed operators that prior to September 1975 the union represen- tatives only visited the stores once or twice a year; the Union's waiver in September or October 1975 of Respon- dent's obligations to pay backpayment for moneys due on welfare and pension benefits for nonunion employees because the Union or the Respondent had been lax; two documents dated January 15, 1975, and February 17; statements made by three or four unidentified employees to Hartman that they did not want to belong to the Union and did not want to pay dues for belonging to the Union anymore; statements by four employees to Hartman, only one of whom testified, that they were not going to get anything from the Union and they just did not want to belong to it; and the rate of employee turnover in the unit. An examination of such evidence relied upon, refutes rather than establishes Respondent had a reasonable doubt based upon objective considerations for believing the Union had lost its majority status. Neither the facts that attendance at the union meeting held a year earlier was small; the failure of union represen- tatives to visit the shops more often; nor the Union's waiver of backpayment for pension and welfare benefits for nonmembers because the Union or Respondent was lax, could arguably support a reasonable doubt of the Union's majority status. With respect to the two documents offered, the contents of the Union's February 15 letter could not have been relied upon since it was not sent to the employees until after the refusal to bargain had occurred, and the January 15, 1975, document which on its face did not name the Respondent and referred to a contract that expired a year before Respondent's contract, was not established as involving Respondent's employees. Further, these two documents considered in their entirety constitute no more than appeals to obtain employees' support for the Union rather than evidence they had rejected the Union as their bargaining representative as urged. Insofar as the employees' statements to Hartman are concerned, less than a majority of the employees made such statements22 and their complaints relate primarily to their having to belong to the Union and pay dues rather than desires not to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Board in Orion Corporation 23 held as follows: [A] showing as to employee membership in, or actual financial support of, an incumbent union is not the equivalent of establishing the number of employees who continue to desire representation by that union. There is no necessary correlation between membership and the number of union supporters since no one could know how many employees who favor union bargaining do not become or remain members thereof. The remaining basis urged by Respondent relates to the rate of employee turnover. Since, under the law, new employees are presumed to support the union in the same ratio as those who have been replaced,24 this basis is also rejected. For the reasons stated, I find that the Respondent did not have a reasonable doubt based upon objective considera- tions for believing that the Union had lost its majority status. Having rejected the Respondent's defense, I find that the Respondent, by admittedly refusing to recognize and, as requested, bargain with the Union which represented the unit employees, thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Cut and Curl, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Beauty Culturists & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB, International Industrial Production Employees Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All employees of the Respondent employed at its Amityville, Astoria, and Hempstead stores, excluding receptionists, managers and assistant managers, and super- visors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein the Union has been, and is now, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 21 No evidence was offered to establish that the Union did not actually represent a majority of the unit employees 22 See Emerson Manufacturing Company, Inc. 200 NLRB 148, 151 (1972). 23 210 NLRB 633 (1974), enfd 515 F.2d 81 (C A. 7, 1975) 24 True Temper Corp, 217 NLRB 1 120 (1975). 1874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. To remedy Respondent's unlawful withdrawal of recog- nition of the Union , I shall recommend that the Respon- dent recognize the Union and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. 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: ORDER 25 The Respondent, Cut and Curl, Inc., Jericho, New York, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Beauty Culturists & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB, International Industrial Production Employees Union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. All employees of the Respondent employed at its Amityville, Astoria, and Hempstead Stores, excluding receptionists , managers and assistant managers and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively with Beauty Cultunsts & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB , International Industrial Production Employees Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the terms of such understanding in a written signed agreement. (b) Post at its facilities located at Jericho, Amityville, Astoria, and Hempstead, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 26 Copies of said notices, on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentative , shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further ordered that the amended complaint be, and hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. 25 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. ss In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collectively with Beauty Culturists & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB, International Industrial Produc- tion Employees Union , as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT , in like or related manner, interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. WE wn .L recognize , and upon request , bargain with Beauty Culturists & Service Employees Union Local 150 AB , International Industrial Production Employees Union, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages , hours , and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All employees of the Respondent employed at its Amityville, Astoria, and Hempstead Stores, ex- cluding receptionists , managers , and assistant managers and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. CUT AND CURL, INC. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation