Cut and Curl, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1977

227 N.L.R.B. 1869 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

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.