De Luca Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 327 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

DE LUCA BROTHERS , INC. 327
De Luca Brothers, Inc. and Local 408 a/w Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Case
22-CA-4907
January 18, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On October 5, 1972 , Administrative Law Judge
Alvin Lieberman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief , and the Charging Party filed
exceptions and a supporting brief and a brief in
answer to the exceptions of the Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.'
litigated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(the Act). Particularly , the principal questions for decision
are as follows:
1. Did Respondent independently violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by , as the complaint alleges, threatening
to go out of business if its employees continued to remain
members of , or continued to give assistance and support to,
Local 408 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the
Union); 3 informing employees that it would never recog-
nize the Union as their collective -bargaining representative
and that it would recognize another labor organization for
that purpose ; and promising benefits to employees to
dissuade them from supporting the Union?
2. Did the Union represent a majority of Respondent's
employees when its request for recognition was made?
3. Assuming an affirmative answer to question 2, did
Respondent violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing
to recognize the Union?
4. Assuming an affirmative answer to question 3,
should a bargaining order issue?
Upon the entire record ,4 upon my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor while testifying , and upon
careful consideration of the arguments made and briefs
submitted,5 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT6
1. JURISDICTION
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, De Luca Broth-
ers, Inc ., Mountain Lake , New Jersey , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
i While Chairman Miller agrees that a bargaining order is appropriate
herein , he would , for reasons stated in his separate concurrence in United
Packing Company of Iowa, Inc., 187 NLRB No 132. predicate the remedy
only on the serious independent violations of Sec 8(axl).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALVIN LIEBERMAN , Administrative Law Judge : The trial
in this proceeding, with all parties represented , was held
before me in Newark, New Jersey , on August 1, 2, and 3,
1972, upon the General Counsel's complaint dated June
19, 1972,1 and Respondent's answer.2 In general , the issues
i The complaint was issued pursuant to a charge filed on April 27. 1972,
by Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , AFL-CIO.
2 During the trial the answer was amended to admit the allegations of
pars 13 and 18 of the complaint.
H See fn . 1, above, for the Union 's full designation.
4 Issued simultaneously is a separate order correcting obvious inadvert-
ent errors in the stenographic transcript of this proceeding . [Omitted from
publication.]
Respondent, whose place of business is located in
Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, is a local and interstate
motor carrier of household goods . During 1971, a repre-
sentative period, Respondent 's revenue derived from the
interstate portion of its business exceeded $50,000. Accord-
ingly, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that the assertion of
jurisdiction over this matter by the National Labor
Relations Board (the Board) is warranted . HPO Service,
Inc., 122 NLRB 394, 395.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. INTRODUCTION
Briefly, this case is concerned with the Union's request
for recognition as the collective-bargaining representative
of Respondent's employees, to which Respondent did not
accede, and certain subsequent events. Included among the
latter, the complaint alleges, were violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by Respondent.?
' Although all the arguments of the parties and the authorities cited by
them , whether appearing in their briefs or made orally at the trial, may not
be discussed in this Decision each has been carefully weighed and
considered.
6 Respondent 's motions made at the conclusion of the trial, upon which I
reserved decision , are disposed of in accordance with the findings and
conclusions set forth in this Decision.
I The nature of these claimed violations appear above in my statement of
the principal questions for decision.
201 NLRB No. 49
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel and the Union contends that
Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union was violative
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The General Counsel further
contends that, by reason of Respondent' s violations of
Section 8(a)(I), as alleged in the complaint, a bargaining
order should issue.9
Respondent denies the complaint's allegations that it
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.'° Concerning its failure
to recognize the Union, Respondent asserts that it was not
obliged to do so because, as its lawyer stated during the
trial, "there was a good faith doubt" that the Union
represented a majority of the employees in the unit
involved.' i In addition, and assuming the Union's majori-
ty, Respondent argues that it did not violate Section 8(a)(5)
because the Union never called upon Respondent to
bargain with it. Rather, Respondent' s argument continues,
it merely requested recognition which Respondent main-
tains is not tantamount to a request for bargaining.
IV. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS12
A. Respondent's Operations
1. Respondent's business
As already noted, Respondent is a local and interstate
mover of household goods. It is an agent of Atlas Van
Lines, Inc. (Atlas) which refers business to Respondent.
Remo De Luca is Respondent's president and sole
stockholder. His wife is Respondent's secretary.
In the building which houses Respondent's offices, in
whose vicinity its trucks are usually parked when not in
use, De Luca and his wife operate a retail furniture store.
This store, a separate corporate entity, is conducted under
the name of De Luca's Furniture.
The household goods moving industry is seasonal. It is
active from May through November and quiescent from
December through April.
Respondent's business follows this cycle. In this connec-
tion, De Luca, Respondent's president, stated, with
s As the contentions of the General Counsel and the Union are, in
the main , similar, they will he referred to hereinafter as the General
Counsel's contentions unless otherwise noted
" Set forth below are the relevant provisions of the Act to which
reference has been made in the text
Sec 8 (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(I) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.
(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives
of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a)
Insofar as pertinent, Sees 7 and 9(a) are as follows
Sec 7 Employees shall have the right 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, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of
such activities
Sec 9 (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes
of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit
appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of
all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment
10 At the opening of the trial Respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint insofar as it alleged violations of Sec 8(a)(1), contending that
because the charge referred to those violations in general language only
perhaps more than a little hyperbole, "we are busy .. .
between . . . May [and] November, and then from
November [until May] we actually come to almost a dead
stop." While during the latter period Respondent performs
few local moves, it does receive interstate business from
Atlas.
Respondent has a permanent cadre of employees which
is augmented during its busy season by such numbers of
additional employees as required by the work on hand at
any particular time. On an average, in the slow months
Respondent's regular employees work 2 to 4 days a week.
During the other months Respondent's employees average
5 and more days a week.
The ordinary maintenance work on Respondent's trucks
is done at a local garage . Extraordinary repairs are made in
a shop on Respondent' s premises by a mechanic, who, as
De Luca testified, worked "on a contract basis ," receiving
an agreed-upon sum of money for each job.
2. Benefits enjoyed by Respondent's employees
and some conditions under which they work
Among Respondent's employees are truckdrivers, help-
ers, and a warehouseman .13 Before April 27, 1972,14 their
hourly wage rates ranged from $3 to $3.65,15 they were not
paid for vacations or for holidays on which they did not
work, nor did they regularly receive premium pay for
overtime work.
Respondent, before April 27, 1972,16 did not maintain
hospital or medical insurance for the benefit of its
employees. Finally, concerning working conditions, Re-
spondent did not follow seniority in apportioning work
to its employees.
B. The Union's Organization of Respondent's
Employees, its Request for Recognition, and the
Strike
Although it does not ordinarily represent employees in
the household goods moving industry, the Union, at the
there was lacking the necessary relationship between the charge and the
complaint This motion was denied. Pursuant to permission Respondent
renewed this motion at the end of the entire case and I reserved decision
Upon due consideration , it is my opinion that Respondent 's second motion
to dismiss the 8 (a)(l) allegations of the complaint , like its first, is not well
taken See, in this connection . Rafael tgartua, etc, 174 N LRB 615, fn. 3, and
Trboro Carting Corporation, 117 NLRB 775, 777-780, enfd. 251 F 2d 959
(C A 2) Accordingly, it is hereby denied
ii There is agreement as to the appropriateness of the unit for which
recognition was requested As set forth in the complaint it consists of "all
drivers, helpers, warehousemen and mechanics employed at Respondent's
Mountain Lakes place of business but excluding all office clerical
employees , salesmen , professional employees , guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act "
i2 The purpose of these findings is to furnish a frame of reference within
which to consider the facts relating to Respondent 's alleged unfair labor
practices and the conclusions to which they may give rise To the extent that
the contentions of the parties relate specifically to the findings made here
they will he treated here , although they . as well as the findings, may again
be considered in other contexts
i i Employees falling within these categories are included in the unit
which the parties agreed is appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining
i4 The complaint alleges that on this date , among others, Respondent
promised benefits to its employees to dissuade them from supporting the
Union
is Some over-the-road drivers are not hourly rated They receive a
percentage of the price charged by Respondent for the move they work on
16 All dates hereinafter mentioned without stating a year fall within 1971
DE LUCA BROTHERS , INC. 329
request of Alfred Zammataro, an employee of Respondent,
undertook the organization of Respondent's employees
and their representation for collective bargaining. To this
end, between April 20 and 24, 1972, it obtained authoriza-
tion cards from eight persons employed by Respondent.
With these cards in his possession, and accompanied by
the employees who signed them, Donald DiLeo, the
Union's business agent, met with Remo De Luca, Respon-
dent's president, on Respondent' s premises on Monday,
April 24. At this meeting DiLeo told De Luca that the
Union represented a majority of Respondent's employees.
DiLeo, with the acquiescence of the employees who were
with him, then requested that Respondent recognize the
Union and sign a recognition -agreement . De Luca declined
and Respondent has not, since then, recognized the Union
as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees.
Following De Luca's refusal to recognize the Union and
to sign a recognition agreement DiLeo established a picket
line, manned by the employees who had been present at his
meeting with De Luca, in front of Respondent's building.
The picket signs stated: "Teamsters at De Luca Brothers
Incorporated on Strike."
On April 25, the day after the picketing started and while
it was in progress, DiLeo showed De Luca the form of
recognition agreement 17 which De Luca had been asked to
sign the previous day. De Luca made, and retained, a copy
of this form.
The strike which began on April 24 continued until June
27. Upon its termination Respondent offered reinstatement
to all employees who participated in it.18
C. The Union 's Majority
To establish the Union's majority in the unit agreed
upon by the parties as being appropriate for collective
bargaining19 the General Counsel placed in evidence the
eight authorization cards which were in the possession of
Donald DiLeo, the Union's business agent, on April 24,
1972, the date he requested that Respondent recognize the
Union. Each card clearly and unambiguously designated
the Union to act as the signer's collective-bargaining
representative.
The cards received in evidence had been executed by
Charles Van Alstine, Joseph Franchak, Alfred Zammataro,
John Machinshok, Charles Turner, John O'Sullivan, John
Freudenwall, and Gerald Biche. These employees and
another, Tom Jones, who did not sign a card, were part of
Respondent's permanent cadre. All, except Van Alstine,
17 In pertinent part the recognition agreement form , which was received
in evidence as Resp. Exh 2 , recites "THE EMPLOYER HEREBY
RECOGNIZES THE UNION AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
NEGOTIATING WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS"
is The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that the strike, which
was in progress when the complaint issued , was an unfair labor practice
strike In view of Respondent 's offer of reinstatement to all striking
employees a determination as to the nature of the strike seems to be
unnecessary
19 As set forth in In 11 . above , this unit included drivers , helpers.
warehousemen , and mechanics and expressly excluded salesmen
20 Remo De Luca, Respondent 's president , testified that Apostolico's
title was meaningless and was given to him for the sole purpose of
impressing Respondent's customers.
21 On occasion Apostolico also drove a truck for Respondent However,
who had been hired on April 15, had worked for
Respondent for substantial periods of time between
January 1 and April 24 as a driver, helper, or warehouse-
man. None had quit or had been discharged before April
24. At least two, Turner and Van Alstine, were scheduled
to work on April 24, but did not because of the strike
which started on that day. One, Jones, was actually
working on April 24.
I find, therefore, that all nine were in the unit on April
24. This being so, the eight cards received in evidence will
be counted in determining the Union's majority.
Respondent contends that on April 24 there were 13
additional employees in the unit on whose behalf the
Union requested recognition who had not signed cards or
otherwise indicated that they desired to be represented by
the Union. These persons, Respondent asserts, constituted
the pool from which it drew employees to augment its
permanent cadre and therefore should be taken into
account in resolving the question of the Union's majority.
Among this group of 13 people who Respondent maintains
were in the unit on April 24 are the following 9 who will be
specially considered: Nerina Amori, Louis Apostolico,
Mike Bednarczk, Jack Evenko, Joe Laponte, Robert
Levensen, Mike Russell , David Skarbnik, and John
Smithey.
Nerina Amori: Amori works for Respondent I day a
week. Her duties consist of cleaning Respondent's offices
and other portions of its premises. On rare occasions she
packs an item to be moved. Not being a driver, helper,
warehousemen, or mechanic and spending virtually all of
her time in performing janitorial functions, Amori will not
be considered as being a member of the unit.
Louis Apostolico: At all material times Apostolico's title
was general manager.20 He directed the work of Respon-
dent's employees, disciplined them, granted them time off,
and adjusted their work-related complaints.21 In addition,
he participated substantially in the hiring of at least two
employees, O'Sullivan and Zammataro. Accordingly, I find
that Apostolico was a supervisor. He will not, therefore, be
counted in determining the size of the unit. Self Reliance
Ukrainian American Cooperative Association, etc., 188
NLRB No. 95, enfd. in this respect 461 F.2d 33 (C.A. 7).
Mike Bednarczk: Bednarczk is Respondent's sales man-
ager.22 Unlike Respondent's drivers, helpers, warehouse-
men, and mechanics he has a desk and telephone in
Respondent's office. Bednarczk's "function" is to "sell"
moving jobs, as De Luca testified. 23 Being a salesman,
Bednarczk falls within a class of employees expressly
he did so only where the trip involved was, as one employee testified, a
"good" one
22 Remo De Luca, Respondent's president, stated that he gave
Bednarczk the title of sales manager "for the same reason [he] gave
Apostolico the title [of general manager ]. to impress people."
21 In an "emergency ." De Luca also testified , Bednarczk "pitches in [and
does] packing [and ] loading." Asked to estimate the amount of time
devoted by Bednarczk to packing and loading as distinguished from selling
De Luca stated that during Respondent 's busy season Bednarczk spent 40
percent of his time packing and loading and 60 percent selling I cannot
accept this breakdown . It is unsupported by records, appears to be
speculative, and is at variance with De Luca 's testimony that Bednarczk
packed and loaded only in an "emergency ." Furthermore, it seems to me
that in Respondent 's busy season Bednarczk would be busier selling than he
would be at other times of the year and would have little time to give to
other work.
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excluded from the unit agreed upon by the parties as being
appropriate for collective bargaining.
Jack Evenko: In an earlier section of this Decision I
noted that Respondent's trucks were repaired by a
mechanic who, De Luca testified , worked "on a contract
basis ." Evenko is the mechanic to whom De Luca referred.
Being , thus , in the position of an independent contractor,
Evenko , as a matter of law , is not an employee of
Respondent . See Section 2(3) of the Act which excepts
from the definition of the term employee "any individual
having the status of an independent contractor ." He will,
therefore , not be treated as being in the unit.
Joe Laponte and Mike Russell: Laponte and Russell are
college students who worked for Respondent as helpers
during their summer vacation in 1971 .24 It is well settled
that students who work only during their school vacation
periods cannot be included in collective -bargaining units.
Accordingly, Laponte and Russell will not be considered
as having been members of the unit when the Union
requested recognition.
Robert Levensen: Levensen is a driver. De Luca,
Respondent 's president, testified that "it could be [that
Levensen ] did not work for [Respondent ] during the first
four or five months of 1972," and that "it was "correct" to
say that Levensen "hadn't worked for [Respondent] for a
year before [April 241." During this period Levensen was
offered, but year before [April 24] During this period
Levensen was offered , but refused to accept , employment
with Respondent. In view of Levensen's not having worked
for Respondent at any proximate time before April 24, the
date on which the Union requested recognition , it would
be unrealistic to include him in the unit.
Daniel Skarbnik and John Smithey: Skarbnik and
Smithey had been employed by Respondent as a helper
and driver, respectively. Both, however, quit their jobs,
Skarbnik on April 21, and Smithey some weeks earlier.
Accordingly , neither can be said to have been in the unit
on April 24.
Having found that the foregoing nine employees were
not in the unit when the Union requested recognition,
findings need not be made concerning the remaining
four25 who, Respondent contends should be counted in
determining the unit's size. Even if it were to be found that
they were in the unit on April 24, the unit would have
consisted of 13 employees 26 of whom 8 signed cards
validly authorizing the Union to act as their bargaining
representative . This being the case , I conclude that the
Union represented a majority of the employees in the unit
when it requested recognition.
V. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts, Contentions, and Conclusions Concerning
Respondent's Alleged Independent Violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
As already noted , the complaint alleges that following
the Union's request for recognition Respondent violated
24 Although not too clear from the record , Russell may also have worked
for Respondent dunng his spring vacation in 1972.
25 These are Ronny Greco , Marvin Martin , Frank Martinez, and
Legrand Smithey.
26 This total would be composed of the remaining four , the eight who
signed authorization cards and Tom Jones, who did not sign a card
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act by informing employees that it
would never recognize the Union and that it would
recognize another labor organization , by threatening to go
out of business if its employees continued to support the
Union , and by promising benefits to employees to dissuade
them from supporting the Union . These allegations, which
Respondent has denied in its answer , will be separately
considered.
1. Statements concerning Respondent 's intention
never to recognize the Union and to recognize
another labor organization
As set forth above , the Union's strike against Respon-
dent began on April 24, 1972, a short time after a majority
of Respondent 's employees had signed cards authorizing
the Union to act as their bargaining representative . Several
hours after the strike started and while picketing was in
progress Remo De Luca, Respondent 's president, told
striking employees that he "wasn ' t going to have the
[Union]"; that "there would be no way that the [ Union]
would get in"; and that "there was no way that he was
going to recognize the [U ]nion ." Also on April 24 and on
subsequent occasions dunng that week De Luca informed
employees who were on strike that he "would get a movers
union in" 27 to represent Respondent 's employees.28
De Luca did not deny making the foregoing statements
and expressly admitted telling employees that he "would
bring another union in." By way of explanation he testified
that when the Union requested recognition he consulted a
"few" moving companies "in the area" and was informed
by them that their employees were represented by a labor
organization which, unlike the Union, was a "mover's
union" and understood the "problems" of their industry.
For this reason , De Luca continued, he told Respondent's
striking employees that "the movers union would be the
best union" for Respondent to deal with as the representa-
tive of its employees.
De Luca's reasons for telling Respondent 's employees
that Respondent would not recognize the Union and
would recognize a "movers union " seem to be immaterial.
What is important is that what De Luca said had the effect
of impressing upon the employees , who had only recently
chosen the Union to represent them and who were then
striking because the Union 's request for recognition had
been refused, that their continued support of the Union
would be fruitless . In this respect De Luca's statements
were coercive and interfered with their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. Better Val-U Stores etc., 161 NLRB
762, 763, enfd . in this respect 401 F.2d 491 (C.A. 2);
Federal Dairy Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 1158, 1159, enfd.
297 F.2d 487 (C.A. 1).
21 It will be remembered , in this connection , that the Union does not
ordinarily represent employees in the household goods moving industry
25 The quotations appearing in the text are taken from testimony given
by Alfred Zammataro , an employee who signed an authorization card and
participated in the stoke.
DE LUCA BROTHERS, INC. 331
Accordingly, I conclude that by De Luca's statements
indicating that it would be futile for Respondent's
employees to continue supporting the Union Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Threats to go out of business
During the week of April 24, 1972, Remo De Luca,
Respondent's president, told employees who were then on
strike that because Respondent "couldn't afford the
union" it would go out of business. Amplifying this, on
April 26 De Luca informed Alfred Zammataro that "he
would close up before [getting the Union] in and .. .
would run one truck from his house." 29
On April 27, while De Luca's threats to go out of
business were still fresh, De Luca hung a sign on
Respondent's building stating "This property for sale or
lease." In addition, De Luca positioned one of Respon-
dent's tractors in front of its building, where it could be
seen by the pickets, and placed a "for sale" sign on it also.
Concerning the sale sign on Respondent's building, De
Luca testified that it related to the retail furniture store he
and his wife operated on Respondent' s premises and not to
Respondent's business. De Luca stated that his reason for
offering to sell the furniture store was that "for a year and
a half" it had brought him "no revenue." De Luca testified
further that he put the sale sign on the tractor because "it
was not running well" and because he "had to make the
next payroll and . . . needed the money."
Considering the sequence of events, I do not credit the
testimony given by De Luca, Respondent's president,
concerning his reasons for placing the sale signs on
Respondent's building and tractor. In my opinion De Luca
put the signs up to emphasize to Respondent's employees
that his previous threats that Respondent would go out of
business upon the advent of the Union were not mere idle
words.
It being well settled that an employer's threats to
employees of the nature made here by De Luca are
coercive of their Section 7 rights, I conclude that thereby
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also
conclude that, in the circumstances, Respondent also
violated Section 8(a)(1) by De Luca's placing of sale signs
on Respondent's building and tractor.
3. Promises of benefit
On April 24, 1972, the day on which the strike against
Respondent began, De Luca, Respondent's president,
29 My findings here are based on uncontradicted testimony given by
Zammataro , from whose account the quotations appearing in the text are
taken , Charles Turner, and John O'Sullivan , employees who participated in
the strike.
30 My findings concerning this incident are based on, and the quotations
appearing in the text are taken from , testimony given by O'Sullivan. De
Luca denied offering O'Sullivan a raise to induce him to abandon the strike.
Being most favorably impressed with O 'Sullivan's demeanor as a witness, I
do not credit De Luca's denial
3i It will be remembered that I have found Apostolico to be a supervisor
32 As I pointed out earlier in this Decision , at the time of De Luca's offer
here under discussion Respondent's employees were not paid for holidays
approached the picket line and spoke to John O'Sullivan,
an employee who was then picketing. During this conver-
sation De Luca said that "the union would only get [the
strikers] probably . . . fifteen [or] twenty cents [but that] if
[the strikers] came back he could probably give [them] a
quarter raise."30 Upon his return to work following the
termination of the strike O'Sullivan received the 25-cent
raise De Luca offered during the strike.
Some days later, on April 27, two striking employees,
Charles Turner and John Freudenwall, visited Louis
Apostolico, Respondent's general manager.31 While dis-
cussing the strike with Apostolico he told Turner and
Freudenwall that De Luca "would like to talk things over,
find out just what the story was." Turner and Freudenwall
not being averse to doing so, Apostolico arranged for them
to meet with De Luca at his home that evening.
Turner and Freudenwall, accompanied by Apostolico,
arrived at De Luca's house about 7:30 and stayed until
about 5:30 the next morning. During this meeting De Luca
inquired of them as to "what the strikers wanted in the way
of pay [and ] things like . . . holidays [and ] hospitaliza-
tion." They told him "what [they] thought the men
wanted."
After listening to their recital De Luca, Respondent's
president, proceeded to enumerate the benefits he was
prepared to offer Respondent's employees provided they
abandoned the strike and returned to work "without the
union." Among the things De Luca promised the employ-
ees upon their compliance with these conditions were
higher wage rates, premium pay for overtime, seven paid
holidays, paid vacations, hospital and medical insurance
underwritten in part by Respondent, and a seniority
system 32
As De Luca spoke, specifying these benefits, Freuden-
wall "scribbled . . . down" what De Luca was saying on a
small piece of paper. Because Freudenwall's scribbling was
hard to read Apostolico, Respondent's general manager,
made a more legible copy on a large sheet of paper
supplied by De Luca.33
After reading what Apostolico had copied De Luca said
that the "things" on the paper written by Apostolico were
what "he could afford to give [Respondent's employees]
without the [U ]nion." In this connection, De Luca
suggested that the employees "form [their] own union, like
a shop union."
Toward the end of the meeting Turner undertook to
show the paper containing De Luca's offer to Respondent's
employees "and see what they said." This he did later that
morning.34
Much need not be said to demonstrate the violative
nature of promises of benefit made by an employer to
on which they did not work or for vacations , and they did not regularly
receive premium pay for overtime work . In addition, Respondent did not
maintain medical or hospital insurance for its employees , nor did it follow
seniority in apportioning work.
33 This paper is in evidence as GC Exh. 12.
34 My findings concerning the session in De Luca 's home are based on,
and the quotations appearing in the text are taken from , testimony given by
Turner and Freudenwall , who at the time of the trial no longer worked for
Respondent; the former having obtained other employment after the strike,
and the latter during the strike but subsequent to April 28. De Luca gave a
different version of what transpired at his house during his all-night meeting
with Apostolico, Turner . and Freudenwall . In essence De Luca stated that
(Continued)
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dissuade his employees from supporting a union. A
complete exposition of why such promises fall within the
Act's proscription appears in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts
Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409-410.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by De Luca's promise to raise the
wages of Respondent's striking employees if they would
abandon the strike and by the offer he made to increase the
benefits of Respondent's employees to induce them to
forsake the Union.
I come to a different conclusion concerning a third
incident which the General Counsel contends was likewise
violative of Section 8(axl) of the Act. This relates to the
use by De Luca, Respondent's president, of an expression,
"Christmas in June" while having lunch with Alfred
Zammataro, an employee of Respondent who was on
strike at the time . It should be remembered , in this
connection , that the Union's organization of Respondent's
employees was undertaken at Zammataro's request.
During the morning of April 26, 1972, De Luca
distributed checks to some of Respondent 's striking
employees in payment for work they performed the
previous week. Zammataro not having worked during that
period did not receive a check.
Notwithstanding that no wages were due to Zammataro,
he facetiously asked De Luca for a check. With equal
facetiousness De Luca replied, "I can't give you a check.
Christmas comes in June when everybody works.1135
Later that day Zammataro and another employee had
lunch with De Luca, Respondent 's president . During an
absence of the other employee from the table Zammataro,
after referring to his failure to receive a check that
morning, told De Luca that he had a family to support and
"needed bread."36 De Luca again observed that "Christ-
mas comes in June."37
There being no credible evidence to sustain the General
Counsel's contention that the "Christmas in June" remark
when Turner and Freudenwall arrived at his house one of them had a small
piece of scrap paper on which was set forth the benefits the employees
hoped to achieve by the strike, that because Turner couldn 't read what was
written on the paper Apostolico made a more legible copy on paper he (De
Luca) supplied ; that although there was a discussion of the items appearing
on the paper prepared by Apostolico, which he never read , he did not agree
to any of them , but stated to Turner and Freudenwall mainly that , as he did
every year in June , he would "review [and] consider" them at that time.
Finally De Luca denied telling Turner and Freudenwall to get rid of the
Union and to form a shop union I do not credit De Luca's account of what
occurred during his meeting with Turner and Freudenwall for the following
reasons
(I) It strains credulity to believe that De Luca would not have read the
paper written by Apostolico.
(2) There is no evidence to corroborate De Luca's testimony that he
reviews employee benefits every June
(3) Although neither Turner nor Freudenwall was present in the hearing
room while the other testified their testimony as to the events of the meeting
was mutually corroborative and further corroborated by O'Sullivan, who
was likewise absent from the hearing room when they gave their testimony
and as to whose demeanor as a witness I have already commented (see In
29), who stated that on April 28, De Luca told him that what was on the
paper written by Apostolico was "the best he could come up with "
(4) At the time of the trial Turner and Freudenwall were no longer in
Respondent 's employ and there is nothing in the record to suggest that their
departure was not amicable They were , therefore , in the position of
disinterested witnesses Having, thus, nothing to gain or lose by the outcome
of this litigation their testimony is entitled to greater weight than the
conflicting testimony given by De Luca who, as Respondent 's president.
would be affected by the judgment rendered here See , in this connection,
made by De Luca while having lunch with Zammataro on
April 24 was a promise of benefit made for the purpose of
persuading Zammataro to cease supporting the Union, I
do not find it to have been violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
B. Facts, Contentions, and Conclusions Concerning
Respondent 's Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act
Insofar as is here pertinent, the complaint alleges that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing
"to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union."
The complaint further alleges as an integral part of this
claimed unfair labor practice Respondent's independent
violations of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. In support of the
complaint's allegations in this respect the General Counsel
relies on N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575.
Findings have already been made concerning this phase
of the case. In brief recapitulation, I have found that on
April 24, 1972, the Union requested recognition as the
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in a unit composed of drivers, helpers, warehouse-
men and mechanics; 38 that at the time of its request the
Union represented a majority of the employees in this unit;
that Respondent has never recognized the Union; and that
following the Union's request for recognition Respondent
engaged in independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Respondent has interposed two defenses to the com-
plaint's allegations here under consideration. It contends
that when the Union requested recognition Respondent
had, as its lawyer stated during the trial, "a good faith
doubt" as to the Union's majority and therefore was not
obligated to bargain with the Union.39 Respondent's
second point is that, regardless of majority, it was never
requested to bargain with the Union. In this regard,
Hoskins Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc, 161 NLRB 1492, 1500, In 19.
35 As I noted in an earlier portion of this Decision , Respondent's busy
season includes the month of June
36 "Bread " is frequently used in common parlance as a synonym for
"money." See Webster ' s Third New International Dictionary, 1968.
37 My findings concerning this incident are based on, and the quotations
appearing in the text are taken from , testimony given by De Luca A
substantially different version of his luncheon conversation with De Luca
was given by Zammataro He testified that while the other employee who
was eating with them was away from the table , De Luca , after mentioning
that he "was the one that called the union ." stated that " if [he (Zammataro) ]
would get rid of (the Union i it would be Christmas in June for (him
(Zammataro) ] " I find it difficult to believe Zammataro 's story. it seems to
me that if De Luca wanted to reward Zammataro for ridding Respondent of
the Union he would not have deferred the prize for 2 months , but would
have offered him something immediately. or. perhaps , he would have
conditioned payment upon Zammataro's procuring the Union's departure
Zammataro's account of his luncheon conversation with De Luca thus lacks
the ring of truth and I reject it . On the other hand , De Luca's testimony, not
suffering from this infirmity is accepted. In this connection , I have earlier in
other respects credited Zammataro and discredited De Luca However, "it
is no reason for refusing to accept everything that a witness says, because
you do not believe all of it; nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial
decisions than to believe some and not all " N LR B v Universal Camera
Corporation, 179 F 2d 749. 754 (C.A 2), reversed on other grounds 340 U S
474.
38 As has been pointed out in fn 11 , above, there is no dispute as to the
appropriateness of this unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
39 Respondent reiterated this position in its brief and amplified it by
stating that it "did not have independent knowledge on April 24, 1972, [the
DE LUCA BROTHERS, INC. 333
Respondent asserts that a request for recognition, such as
was made here by the Union, is not the equivalent of a
request for bargaining.
It is well settled that an unequivocal request to bargain,
in some form, must be made before an employer's
obligation to bargain can arise. Scobell Chemical Company,
Inc. v. N. L. R.B., 267 F.2d 922, 925 (C.A. 2). A clear request
for recognition, such as was made here by the Union,
satisfies this requirement.40 Respecting this, it need only be
pointed out that the words "bargain" and "recognize" and
words of similar import have been used conjunctively,
interchangeably, and synonymously in 8(a)(5) contexts not
only by the Board,91 but also by courts, including the
Supreme Court.42 Accordingly, I reject, as being without
merit, Respondent's argument that the Union's clear
request for recognition was not tantamount to a request for
bargaining.
Without merit, also, is Respondent's "good faith doubt"
argument. In determining violations of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act "under the Board's current practice, an employer's
good faith doubt [as to a union's majority] is largely
irrelevant."43 Most relevant in ascertaining whether an
employer unlawfully refused to bargain by an outright
failure to recognize a union representing a majority of his
employees in an appropriate unit, as is the case here, is an
assessment of the employer's conduct when faced with the
union's recognition request.
The Board has traditionally held, in such a situation, that
if the employer engaged in serious independent unfair
labor practices he also violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
That there has been no erosion in this view of the law was
recently made plain. In United Packing Company of Iowa,
Inc., 187 NLRB 878, the Board stated that its "historic
practice of finding a violation of Section 8(a)(5) . . . where
an employer has . . . refused to bargain and has commit-
ted serious violations of Section 8(a)(1) remains very much
alive, having been specifically affirmed in [N.L.R.B. v.
Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 620] where the
contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit was reversed." To the same effect, see also Wilder
Mfg. Co., 198 NLRB No. 123, an even more recent
decision than United Packing Company.
I have found that Respondent committed independent
date of the Union 's recognition request ] or thereafter, that [the Union]
represented a majority of the employees in the unit "
40 Neither N L R B v Valley Broadcasting Company, 189 F 2d 582 (C A
6). relied on by Respondent , nor the Board 's decision in that case (87 NLRB
1144) is to the contrary. In the latter , insofar as pertinent , the Board
concluded that a request for recognition qualified by a statement that unless
recognition was granted a petition for certification would be filed was not
unequivocal and therefore insufficient to set in motion the employer's
obligation to bargain. This conclusion was not disturbed by the court The
burden of the court 's decision was that the Board 's finding that the union
had made a later unequivocal request for bargaining was unwarranted by
the evidence
4i See for example, Luby Leasing, Inc, 198 NLRB No 139, Federal
Stainless Sink Div etc , 197 NLRB No 76, Wilder Mfg Co, Inc, 185 NLRB
No 76. set aside on other grounds . 198 NLRB No 123, Linden Lumber
Division , etc. 190 NLRB No 116, John P Serpa, Inc, 166 NLRB 336, John
P Serpa. Inc, 155 NLRB 99, set aside on other grounds 166 NLRB 336,
Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, 154 NLRB 1071, Snow & Sons, 134 NLRB
709, enfd 308 F 2d 687 (C.A 9). and Barney's Supercenter , Inc. 128 NLRB
1325, enfd 296 F 2d 91 (C A 3).
42 See, for example, N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575,
United Mine Workers etc v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Company, 351 U.S. 62,
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Among these were
threats to go out of business and promises of benefit. These
are, indeed , serious unfair labor practices . Luby Leasing,
Inc., 198 NLRB No. 139; Federal Stainless Sink Div., 197
NLRB No. 76.
Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing and
taking into account the fact that Respondent 's independent
unfair labor practices were committed almost immediately
following the Union's request for recognition , I conclude
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to recognize the Union.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Respondent 's unfair labor practices occurring in connec-
tion with its operations set forth 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
Vii. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act, my recommended Order will require Respondent
to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative
action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. Concern-
ing the latter, the General urges the entry of a bargaining
order.44
"A bargaining order . . . is strong medicine ." 45 It should
be prescribed, however, as the Supreme Court held in
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 610,
614-615, to cure "a [Section ] 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain
where an employer has committed independent unfair
labor practices which have made the holding of a fair
election unlikely or which have in fact undermined a
union's majority." The Court went on to say, quoting in
part from Franks Bros. Co. v. N.L. R. B., 321 U.S. 702, 704,
that in such cases if the Board were to "enter only a cease-
and-desist order and direct an election . . . it would in
effect be rewarding the employer and allowing him 'to
profit from [his] own wrongful refusal to bargain.' "
Retail Clerks Union, etc v. N.L R. B., 376 F 2d 186 (C.A. 9); and Joy Silk
Mills, Inc v N LR.B., 185 F .2d 732 (C.A.D.C .), cert denied 341 U S. 914
43 N L R B v Gissel Packing Co., Inc, 395 U.S. 575, 594. Following
Gissel, and reaffirming the position it took there , the Board stated in Linden
Lumber Division, 190 NLRB No 116, that it was declining "to reenter the
'good faith ' thicket "
44 The Union argues, on brief, that "appropriate relief in this case
includes more than a bargaining order." Accordingly , the Union presses for
the entry of an order which bars Respondent from utilizing the Board's
processes for a year and , in addition , provides for the payment of interest by
Respondent retroactive to the date of its request for recognition, on "all
wages and fringe benefits ultimately negotiated ," requires Respondent to
mail to all employees copies of the notice to be posted , and directs
Respondent to pay costs and counsel fees incurred by it and the General
Counsel Recognizing that although the foregoing "sanctions are a hybrid of
both the remedial and punitive , [they] are nevertheless warranted in the
circumstances of this case ." Obviously, insofar as the "sanctions are .
punitive ," they are beyond the Board's power to impose . Republic Steel
Corporation v. NLRB, 311 U.S . 7, 11-12. Insofar as they are remedial,
they do not seem to be "warranted" even by the serious unfair labor
practices committed by Respondent
45 N L R B v. Flomatic Corporation, 347 F.2d 74,78 (C.A 2)
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, and by way of summarizing its extensive discus-
sion on this point, the Court stated that where "the
possibility of erasing the effects of past [unfair labor]
practices and of ensuring a fair election . . . is slight and
that employee sentiment once expressed through cards
would, on balance, be better protected by a bargaining
order, then such an order should issue."
In the light of the foregoing principles it is my opinion
that a bargaining order should issue in this case to remedy
Respondent's violations of the Act. Had Respondent been
guilty of no other unfair labor practices than its promises
of benefits to dissuade employees from supporting the
Union these, alone, by reason of their lingering effect make
a fair election impossible and makes the entry of a
bargaining order imperative. Cf. Federal Stainless Sink
Div., etc., 197 NLRB No. 76. Furthermore, Respondent's
threats to discontinue its business upon the Union's advent
were so permeative that "the possibility of erasing [their]
effects and of ensuring a fair election is slight." Even
before Gissel the Board held that such threats, which
inherently include loss of work and income, "may well be
sufficiently pervasive in their impact to prevent a fair
election and to undermine a union's support." Cohen Bros.
Fruit Company, 166 NLRB 88, 90.
Accordingly, my recommended Order will require
Respondent, by way of affirmative action, to bargain with
the Union upon request. Because of the seriousness of
Respondent's unfair labor practices I will also recommend
the inclusion of broad cease-and-desist provisions.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the following conduct Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:
(a) Indicating to employees that their continued support
of the Union would be futile.
(b) Threatening to discontinue its business should the
Union succeed in becoming the recognized collective-
bargaining representative of its employees.
(c) Emphasizing the foregoing threats by placing "For
Sale" signs on its building and tractor.
(d) Promising benefits to employees to dissuade them
from supporting the Union.
4. All drivers, helpers, warehousemen and mechanics
employed at Respondent's Mountain Lakes, New Jersey,
place of business, but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, salesmen , professional employees, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
5. At all material times the Union has represented a
majority of the employees in the unit set forth in
Conclusion of Law 4, above.
6. By failing and refusing to recognize the Union as the
exclusive collective -bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit set forth in Conclusion of Law 4, above,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of
the Act.
7. The unfair labor practices engaged in by Respon-
dent, as set forth in Conclusions of Law 3 and 6, above,
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 46
ORDER
Respondent, De Luca Brothers, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Indicating to employees that their continued support
of Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or their
supporting any other labor organization , would be futile.
(b) Threatening to discontinue its business should Local
408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization , succeed in becoming the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of any of its employees.
(c) Emphasizing threats of the foregoing nature by
offering any of its property, real or personal, for sale.
(d) Promising or granting benefits to employees to
dissuade them from joining, assisting, or in any manner
supporting, Local 408, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization.
(e) Failing or refusing to recognize Local 408, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All drivers, helpers, warehousemen and mechanics
employed at its Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, place of
business , but excluding all office clerical employees,
salesmen , professional employees , guards, and all
supervisors , as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended,
or failing or refusing, upon request, to bargain with Local
408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, respecting rates of
pay, wages , hours, or other terms or conditions of
employment of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to form , join , or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the
46 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of Sec 10248 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in be deemed waived for all purposes.
DE LUCA BROTHERS, INC.
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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 in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is
found, will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request recognize and bargain with Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit respecting rates of pay, wages,
hours, or other terms or conditions of emplpyment and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its premises in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 47
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by its
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.48
41 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
48 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read.
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to
post this notice and we intend to carry out the order of the
Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT tell you that we will not recognize or
bargain with Local 408, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.
WE WILL NOT bring in a movers union to be your
union.
335
WE WILL NOT tell you that we will bring in a movers
union to be your union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to go out of business before
we recognize Local 408 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters as your union , or because you have chosen
Local 408 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters to
be your union , or to persuade you to reject Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , or to persuade
you to refuse to do anything to help Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
WE WILL NOT put any of our property up for sale or
lease because you have chosen Local 408 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters to be your union, or to
persuade you to reject Local 408, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, or to persuade you to refuse to do
anything to help Local 408, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters.
WE WILL NOT place "For Sale" or "For Lease" signs
on any of our buildings or on any of our tractors,
trailers, or other equipment because you have chosen
Local 408 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters to
be your union , or to persuade you to reject Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , or to persuade
you to refuse to do anything to help Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
WE WILL NOT give you, or promise to give you, pay
raises, overtime pay, paid holidays, paid vacations,
hospital or medical insurance, a seniority system, or
anything else to persuade you to reject Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, or to persuade
you to refuse to do anything to help Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
WE WILL recognize Local 408 , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters as your union.
WE WILL, if we are asked to do so, bargain with
Local 408 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters
about your rates of pay , wages, working hours, and
other matters relating to your work . If we come to an
agreement about any of these things with Local 408,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters we will put
that agreement in writing and sign it.
WE WILL respect your right to form any union, to
join any union , to help any union, and to bargain with
us through any union . We will also respect your right
not to do any of these things, except as required by law.
All our employees are free , without any objection from
us, to become or remain members of Local 408, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , or of any other union, or
not to become or remain members of Local 408, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , or of any other union,
except as required by law.
Dated By
DE LUCA BROTHERS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by or covered by any other material. Any questions concern-
anyone. ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days directed to the Board's Office, 16th Floor, 970 Broad
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone
201-645-2100.