Filtron Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1691 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1691
a natural and probable consequence of the picketing . Nothing said by the pickets,
union agents, or by the signs and handbills , either before or after the election, urged
Employer's employees to join Retail Clerks.14 Neither the employees ' nor Employ-
er's rights were interfered with. Retail Clerks never claimed to represent Employer's
employees . It never demanded recognition as collective ^bargaining representative.
It did not claim that any of Employer 's employees were members of Retail Clerks.
In the circumstances of this case , it cannot be inferred or presumed , juridically,
that Retail Clerks continued picketing after the election with "an object" of "forcing
or requiring" the employees of Employer "to accept or select" Retail Clerks "as their
collective bargaining representative ." The direct evidence adduced by Retail Clerks
as to the sole "object" of the picketing cannot be discredited in the absence of con-
vincing evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I find that General Counsel failed to
prove the alleged unlawful conduct by a preponderance of the testimony.15
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Employer 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. Meat Cutters and Retail Clerks are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Retail Clerks have not picketed in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (B) of the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
14 Oliver testified that she was asked to "resign" [ sic] She however admitted she was a
member of Retail Clerks whose request for withdrawal from that organization had been
denied
15 This legal conclusion notwithstanding that it is difficult to conceive that Retail Clerks
were motivated by a purely altruistic objective But, predilection and speculation have no
evidentiary value From another viewpoint it is difficult to visualize reason for continuing
picketing in the face of protections afforded a certified collective -bargaining agent by the
Act, the Board's Rules and Regulations, and case law (especially the contract-bar rule).
Any possibility that Retail Clerks can legally become bargaining agent in the near future
appears remote
Filtron Company, Inc. and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America , AFL-CIO and Filter
Workers Group , Party to the Contract
Filter Workers Group and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, AFL -CIO and Filtron
Company, Inc., Party to the Contract . Cases Nos. 2-CA-7792
and 2-CB-3118. December 29, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 5, 1961, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action , as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto . Thereafter, both the Respondent Employer
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs. Exceptions were also filed by the Charging
Party. No exceptions were filed by the Respondent Union.
134 NLRB No. 158.
1692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers , Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions 1 of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.
1. The General Counsel excepts, inter alia, to the Trial Examiner's
failure to find specifically that article III, section D, of the contract
between the Respondents is unlawful. We find merit in this excep-
tion. Article III, section D, provides in part that :
... management will review new employees before they become
Union members (60 days) and if management has promised an
increase when hired, management will carry out such promise
the same week the first month's dues are taken out of the em-
ployees' pay.
Not later than 50 days after employment, the Union will notify
the Personnel Department in writing whether or not a new em-
ployee is acceptable.
We agree with the General Counsel that this provision in the contract
is unlawful in that it permits the Respondent Union to reject any
person as a permanent employee and links any promised wage in-
creases with the deduction of dues to the Respondent Union. Accord-
ingly, we find that by entering into and maintaining this provision
in the contract, the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union
violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 8(b) (1) (A) and
(2) of the Act respectively.
2. The General Counsel also excepts to the Trial Examiner's find-
ing that article XVII, section A, of the Respondents' contract is not
unlawful. This provision in the contract reads :
The first sixty (60) days of employment shall be a trial or pro-
bationary period during which new employees may be discharged
without recourse by the Employer or the Union.
In finding no violation here, the Trial Examiner relied on a statement
of counsel for the Respondent Union made during his closing argument
that this provision as worded was the result of an error in draftsman-
I Absent exceptions , we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's finding that the following
provisions in the Respondents' contract are unlawful : article II ; article III, section C,
subsection 1 ; article XIII, sections A and B ; and article XVII , section B. Also in the
absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner 's findings : ( 1) that the
Respondents by their practice of furnishing new employees at time of hire with application-
checkoff cards violated the Act; and ( 2) that the Respondents did not enforce the unlawful
provisions in their contract.
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1693
ship. The Trial Examiner held on this basis that the word "to" had
been inadvertently omitted; and that the provision should be read to
state that after the first 60 days of employment "employees may be
discharged without recourse by the Employer or to the Union." As
the General Counsel contends, no evidence was introduced at the hear-
ing upon which the Trial Examiner's finding could be based? We
therefore find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that the clause
must be read to state precisely what the language says. So read, the
clause gives the Respondent Union a right to discharge probationary
employees-a right not accorded unions by the Act. Accordingly, we
find that by entering into and maintaining this provision in the con-
tract, the Respondent Employer and Respondent Union violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) and Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the
Act, respectively.
3. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
Company by coercively interrogating employees in regard to their
union activities, and by warning and informing employees that it
knew of their activities in behalf of the Union seeking to organize its
plant, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We, also find, as the General Counsel con-
tends, that this conduct constituted unlawful assistance to the Re-
spondent Union, and was therefore violative of Section 8(a) (2) of
the Act.
The record discloses that these acts took place at a time when the
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, was seeking to organize the Company's plant.
Evidence was adduced to show that tension was high among the em-
ployees, and that the illegal conduct occurred at a time when cards for
the IUE were being distributed and signatures solicited, when the
IUE meetings were being held, and about the time that a petition for
representation by the IUE was filed with the Board. The Respondent
Employer's illegal conduct, coming at the height of IUE's organiza-
tional campaign, could not help but lend support to the Respondent
Union.
4. To remedy the violations found, we shall require, inter alia, that
the Respondent Company withdraw recognition from the Respondent
Union as the representative of its employees and that it cease giving
effect to any agreement with the Respondent Union, unless and until
the Respondent Union shall have determined its exclusive majority
2 The Trial Examiner found that the unlawful provisions in the Respondents ' contract
were contained in an old contract form adopted by the negotiators , and "were carried over
trom one contract term to another without any thought being given to them and without
any intention" of discriminating against employees . Here again, the basis of this finding
was statements made by counsel for the Respondent Union alone. No evidence was adduced
at the hearing supporting those statements Therefore , we do not adopt this finding of
the Trial Examiner.
1694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted elections We
consider this remedy particularly appropriate here where the Re-
spondent Employer, in addition to having unlawfully assisted the
Respondent Union in the manner found by the Trial Examiner, also
violated Section 8(a) (2) by threatening and interrogating employees'
with respect to their efforts to replace the incumbent Respondent
Union with another union. Such conduct clearly assisted Respondent
Union in maintaining its representative status and interfered with
the employees' right to freely choose a representative of their choice.
It would not effectuate the policies of the Act under the circumstances
of this case to permit Respondent Union to retain a representative
status maintained, at least in part, by such unlawful employer
assistance'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. The Respondent Filtron Company, Inc., its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Entering into or maintaining any arrangement with Filter
Workers Group whereby Respondent Filtron Company, Inc., issues to
employees at time of hire applications for membership in Filter
Workers Group or dues and initiation fee checkoff authorization cards.
(b) Recognizing or in any other manner dealing with the above-
named Union, or any successor thereto, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees unless and until such
organization shall have been certified as such representative by the
Board.
(c) Maintaining or giving effect to its agreement of February 3,
1961, with the aforesaid Union, or to any modification, extension,
supplement, or renewal thereof, or to any other contract, agreement,
or understanding entered into with said labor organization or any
successor thereto, unless and until said labor organization shall have
been certified by the National Labor Relations Board, provided, how-
ever, that nothing herein shall be construed to require the Respondent
Filtron Company, Inc., to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority,
or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees which
the Respondent Company has established in the performance of this
8 Member Rodgers would not require a withdrawal of recognition, but would adopt the
Trial Examiner 's recommendation that the parties be ordered to cease maintaining and
giving effect to the unlawful provision in their contract.
4 Wah Chang Corporation, 124 NLRB 1170.
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1695
agreement, or to prejudice the accretion by the employees of any
rights acquired thereunder.
(d) Discouraging membership of its employees in the Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by laying off or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of their employment.
(e) Interrogating employees as to their union membership or activ-
ities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(f) Making statements to its employees about its knowledge of
their activities in behalf of International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, AFL-CIO, in a manner or under
circumstances reasonably causing the employees to fear reprisals for
engaging in such activities.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join
or assist the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for their mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withhold all recognition from the Filter Workers Group, or
any successor labor organization, as the exclusive representative of its
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and until
said organization shall have been certified by the Board as such
representative.
(b) Offer to Angelo Charles Izzo and Armando Beniamino im-
mediate reinstatement to the same employee status, rights, and privi-
leges they would have enjoyed but for the discrimination against them
and make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of
such discrimination, all in the manner more particularly described in
the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary for the determination of the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
1696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post at its plant in New York, New York, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent
Filtron Company, Inc., be posted by said Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be 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 Respondent Filtron Company, Inc., to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set
forth in (d) above, as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Di-
rector, copies of the Respondent Union's notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix B."
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
Filtron Company, Inc., has taken to comply herewith.
B. The Respondent Filter Workers Group, its officers, representa-
tives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Entering into or maintaining any arrangement with Filtron
Company, Inc., where the Company issues to employees at time of hire
applications for membership in Filter Workers Group or dues and
initiation fee checkoff authorization cards.
(b) Maintaining or giving effect to its current agreement with
Filtron Company, Inc., or to any extension, renewal, modification,
supplement, or other contract with said Company, unless and until
it shall have been certified as exclusive bargaining representative by
the Board.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing any em-
ployees of Respondent Filtron Company, Inc., in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at places where notices to its members are customarily
posted copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." I
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
° See footnote 5, supra.
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1697
representative of Respondent Union, be posted by said Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Second Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B," to be
posted by the Respondent Company. Copies of this notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director, shall be returned to the Regional Di-
rector forthwith after being signed by the Respondent Union's
representative.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint that Re-
spondents Filtron Company, Inc.,, and Filter Workers Group violated
Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, respectively, by enforcing the
illegal provisions ,of their collective-bargaining agreement be, and
they hereby are, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT enter into or maintain any arrangement with
Filter Workers Group providing for issuance to employees at
time of hire applications for membership in Filter Workers
Group or dues and initiation fee checkoff authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any agreement or contract, or sup-
plements thereto or modifications thereof, or any superseding
contract with the Filter Workers Group.
WE WILL withdraw and, withhold recognition from the above-
named labor organization, or any , successor thereto, unless and
until it shall have demonstrated exclusive majority representative
status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among our
employees.
WE WILL NOT lay off or otherwise discriminate in regard to the
hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of em-
ployment of any of our employees because of their membership
or activities in behalf of International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any'other labor
organization.
630849-62-vol. 134-108
1698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their union mem-
bership and activities in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT make statements to our employees about our
knowledge of their activities in behalf of any labor organization
in a manner or under circumstances reasonably causing our em-
ployees to fear reprisals for engaging in such activities.
WE WILL offer to Angelo Charles Izzo and Armando Beniamino
immediate reinstatement to the employee status, rights, and priv-
ileges which they would have enjoyed absent any discrimination
against them, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are' free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization, except
to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of
employment, or any other condition of employment, against any em-
ployee because of membership in, or activities on behalf of, any such
labor organization.
FILTRON COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remaid posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX' B
To ALL MEMBERS OF THE FILTER WORKERS GROUP AND TO
ALL EMPLOYEES OF FILTRON COMPANY, INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT enter into or maintain any arrangement with
Filtron Company, Inc., providing for issuance to employees at
time of hire applications for membership in Filter Workers
Group or dues and initiation fee checkoff authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our current agreement, or to any
,other contract covering employees of the above-named employer,
unless and until we shall have demonstrated our majority repre-
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1699
sentative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among
said employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
any employees of Filtron Company, Inc., in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
FILTER WORKERS GROUP,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Fannie M. Boyls,
the duly designated Trial Examiner, in New York, New York, on June 5, 6, 8, 9, and
10, 1961, on a consolidated complaint issued by the General Counsel and amended
by him at the hearing and upon the answers of Respondents. The complaint alleged
that Respondent Filtron Company, Inc., herein called Filtron, engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a),(1), (2), and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), and that Respondent Filter Workers
Group, herein called the Filter Workers, engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(.A) and (2) of the Act. At the conclusion of the
hearing, all parties argued orally before me. Thereafter counsel for both Respond-
ents filed briefs which I have duly considered.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses, 'I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT FILTRON
Respondent Filtron is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
New York. It maintains its principal office and place of business in New York City
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electronic com-
ponents and related products. During the year 1960, Respondent manufactured
products valued in excess of $500,000 which were shipped from its plant in New
York City to points outside the State. Respondent concedes, and I find, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. I also find that it will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, the Charging Party, and the Filter Workers Group , one of the Respond-
ents herein , are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. Background and issues
For a number of years prior to 1961, Respondent Filtron had been operating under
a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent Filter Workers Group, an un-
affiliated labor organization. The complaint alleges that since October 11, 1960-
a date 6 months prior to the filing and serving of the amended charge-Respondents
Filtron and Filter Workers maintained in effect and enforced a collective-bargaining
agreement containing certain unlawful provisions. On February 3, 1961, Filtron
1700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the Filter Workers entered into a new contract, to be effective on April 3, 1961,
by the terms of which the old contract was to remain in effect with certain amend-
ments, none of which affected the alleged illegal provisions. One of the amend-
ments, it is alleged, added another illegal provision to the contract. The execution
of the new agreement and the maintenance and enforcement of the illegal provisions
of the new and old agreements were alleged to constitute violations of Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by Respondent Filtron and violations of Section
8(b) (1) (A) and (2) by Respondent Filter Workers.
In January 1961, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the IUE, was engaged in an organizational
campaign at Filtron's plant. The complaint alleges that during the course of this
campaign, Respondent Filtron interrogated its employees regarding their IUE mem-
bership, sympathies, and activities; threatened them with discharge and other re-
prisals if they joined or assisted the IUE; informed its employees that their IUE
activities were being kept under surveillance; and, finally, on January 31, 1961, laid
off two employees, Angelo Charles Izzo and Armando Beniamino, because of their
IUE membership and activities; thereby violating Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
The issues, except those relating to the terms of the collective-bargaining agree-
ments and how the checkoff and union-security provisions were enforced, are for the
most part, in sharp dispute and present credibility problems for resolution.
B. The alleged illegal contract provisions and practices under the contracts
The complaint alleges both that the collective-bargaining agreements contained
provisions unlawful on their face and that these unlawful provisions were enforced.
Respondent Filtron, neither in its oral argument nor in its brief, has attempted to
defend the specific provisions of its contract with the Filter Workers which the Gen-
eral Counsel attacks. It argues only that in practice no employee was required
to join or pay union dues or initiation fees prior to 60 days after he was hired. Re-
spondent Filter Workers, while conceding that some of the language in its contract
was "inartfully" drawn, contends that a reading of the contract as a whole shows an
intent by the parties to abide by the restrictions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and
that there was nothing unlawful in the practices followed by the parties in actually
administering the contract. Before setting forth the evidence regarding Respondents'
practices in operating under the union-security provisions of their contract, I shall
consider the contract terms themselves which are under attack.
1. The contract provisions under attack
There can be no question but that in ascertaining the meaning of any provision of
a contract , that provision should be read in the light of the contract as a whole, not
in isolation , and that each provision, if possible , should be interpreted so as to
harmonize with the other provisions.' It is also true , of course , that parties, by main-
taining in effect unlawful union-security , checkoff, and other discriminatory provi-
sions, engage in conduct proscribed by the Act even though such provisions are not
actually enforced . Red Star Express Lines of Auburn, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 196 F. 2d
78, 81 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Gottfried Baking Co., Inc., et al., 210 F. 2d 772, 779-
780 (C.A. 2). Representatives of both Respondents conceded that all provisions of
their contract were "in effect."
I shall first set forth below each of the alleged unlawful provisions of the con-
tract in effect prior to April 3 , 1961 , the terms of which were carried over in the
new agreement effective on that date . I shall also add , in brackets, such further pro-
visions as appear relevant to a fair understanding of the meaning of those alleged to
be objectionable.
ARTICLE TI
Union Membership
A. All present production Employees and those who in the future enter the
bargaining unit shall be and shall continue to remain members of the Union in
good standing as a term and condition of employment.
B. The Employer agrees that upon application for a job, the new Employee
will file an application for membership in the Union. [After sixty (60) days the
new Employee shall become a member in good standing of the Union. Prior
to the end of the sixty (60) day period, however, the Employer may terminate
the services of the new Employee at any time, for any reason.]
1 12 Am. Jur. 772-775 and cases cited therein.
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1701
ARTICLE III
Wage Rates
D. TRAINEES
All trainees shall receive a minimum of $1.00 per hour. After 30 days of
continuous employment they shall receive a 5¢ increase . Upon completing 90
days of continuous employment the minimum wage rate of trainees will be
$1.10 per hour.
All trainees of Filtron Company, Inc. shall be classified on or before com-
pleting 90 days of continuous service.
Further, management will review new employees before they become Union
members ( 60 days ) and if management has promised an increase when hired,
management will carry out such promise the same week the first month's dues
are taken out of the employees' pay.
Not later than 50 days after employment, the Union will notify the Personnel
Department in writing whether or not a new employee is acceptable.
* * * * * * *
ARTICLE XIII
Deduction of Union Dues
A. As of the first payday, after the 15th day of each month, the Employer
shall deduct from the wages of all employees an amount equal to the monthly
Union dues of such Employees.
B. An Employee who is hired and starts work before the 15th day of the
month shall have dues deducted for that month. An employee who is hired
and starts work after the 15th day of the month shall have dues deductions
start with the following month.
* * * * * * *
[D. No dues will be deducted by the Employer unless authorized in writing
by the Employee, which authorization shall be delivered to the Payroll Depart-
ment by the Union Representative.]
* * * * * * *
ARTICLE XVII
Discharge and Discipline
A. The first sixty (60) days of employment shall be a trial or probationary
period during which new employees may be discharged without recourse by the
Employer or the Union.
B. Employees who have completed their trial period shall be discharged only
for just cause. The Union shall promptly consider any claim that an Employee
who has completed his trial period has been unjustly discharged, and may
present the matter as a grievance to be settled in accordance with the estab-
lished procedure for settlement of grievances.
The management of the plant and the direction of working forces, including
the right to hire, suspend, or discharge for proper cause, and the right to re-
lieve Employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate
reasons is vested exclusively in the Company, provided that this will not be
used for the purpose or purposes of discrimination against any member of the
Union.
In the event that a member of the Union shall be discharged from his em-
ployment from and after the date hereof, and he believes he has been unjustly
dealt with, such discharge shall constitute a case arising under the methods of
adjustment of grievances herein provided.
In the event it should be decided under the rules of this Agreement that an
injustice has been dealt the Employee with regard to the discharge, the Com-
pany shall reinstate such Employee and pay full compensation for all time lost
at the Employee's regular rate.
The new contract, effective from April 3, 1961, to April 3, 1963, carried forward,
without change, the above-quoted provisions. In addition, it contained a "General
Increase" provision (identical to one in the expired contract except as to dates)
which is also alleged to be unlawful. It reads:
1702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARTICLE III
WAGE RATES
C. General Increase
1. All union employees and employees who have applied for union member-
ship prior to April 3, 1961, shall receive a five (.05¢) increase on that date, and
the April 3, 1961 review will be skipped.2
Article II, relating to "Union Membership" clearly provides that all present em-
ployees and those subsequently hired shall, as a condition of employment, be and
continue to remain members of the Union and that new employees, upon applying
for a job, will file applications for membership in the Union. These provisions,
considered alone, would appear to require employees to join prior to the 30-day
delay period guaranteed employees under the first proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act. However, read in conjunction with the remainder of article II which
provides for union membership after 60 days, these provisions appear merely to
contemplate that employees, upon being hired, shall, by signing an application foi
union membership, signify their willingness to join upon the expiration of 60 days as
provided in the contract.
That the parties intended that new employees not be required to join the Union
until 60 days after being hired is further indicated in article III, D of the contract,
relating to trainees . The third paragraph provides: "Further, management will
review new employees before they become Union members (60 days) .
My conclusion that "upon application for a job" an employee is required by the
contract only to sign an application for membership and that he need not become
"a member in good standing" of the Filter Workers until after 60 days of employ-
ment does not mean that the application requirement is lawful. The Board, with
one member dissenting , ruled in Argo Steel Construction Company, 122 NLRB
1077, 1082, that such a requirement constitutes unlawful discrimination against the
employee. In language equally applicable here, the Board stated:
There is nothing in the Act which sanctions such a provision. The Act legal-
izes, as a maximum , union-security provisions which require employees to join
unions on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of their employ-
ment . The instant provisions enlarge upon the maximum sanctioned by the
Act. Under them, persons who may be unwilling to signify an advance intent to
join the union cannot be employed. The Act requires no such signification of
advance intent; it gives employees 30 days of employment before they can be
compelled to make a choice. Accordingly, we find these causes to be illegal
as exceeding the permissive bounds of the statute.
The Board's decision in this respect was approved in N.L.R.B. v. Argo Steel Con-
struction Company, et al., 289 F. 2d 491 (C.A. 6). I am bound by that decision
In view of my conclusion reached above, I must also find that article III, section
C, subsection 1, of the 1961 agreement, granting a wage increase to all "union
employees and employees who have applied for union membership prior to April 3,
1961 ," is likewise unlawful, for this provision clearly discriminates against non-
union employees in a manner which has the natural consequence of encouraging
them to apply for union membership at a time when they may not legally be re-
quired to make that choice.
I now turn to article XIII of the contract, relating to "Deduction of Union Dues."
Sections A and B of that article clearly contemplate that the employee will be
required to pay dues for the first months of his employment .3 The Filter Workers
2 The basic contract between the parties, entitled "Hourly Unit Agreement," was, by its
terms, in effect only from February 11, 1957, to April 4, 1959, but its provisions, except as
expressly thereafter amended, were carried forward and adopted in all subsequent con-
tracts. Article III, C, 1 of this 1957 contract did not purport to discriminate between
employees on the basis of whether they were union members or had applied for union
membership
' It might be argued that article III, section D, providing that management will review
new employees "before they become Union members (60 days)" and that any promise of
increase at the time of hiring will be carried out "the same week the first week's dues are
taken out of the employee's pay" is inconsistent with the provisions of article XIII, con-
sidered above, because, at least by implication, dues would not be deducted until after 60
days of employment However, it can hardly be urged (and Respondents have not urged)
that the implication contained in article III has the effect of nullifying the clear provisions
of article XIII
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1703
points out in its brief that section A refers merely to the deduction of "an amount
equal to the monthly Union dues of such Employees," thus implying that only sup-
port money for the Union, not dues, was to be deducted during the first 30 days of
an employee's tenure. But, aside from the fact that even the exaction of support
money prior to the 30th day of employment appears prohibited under the Act,4
section B of article XIII makes it plain that it is the deduction of dues, not merely
support money, that is contemplated. These dues, as provided by section D, were to
be deducted only upon the written authorization of the employee but implicit in
section B's provision that "An employee who is hired and starts work before the
15th day of the month shall have dues deducted for that month," is a requirement
that the employee shall sign the requisite checkoff authorization . I find that article
XIII, sections A and B, are not permissible under Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) and
under Section 8 (b) (2) and (I) (A) of the Act .5 -
The General Counsel contends that Article III, D of the contract which provides,
inter alia, that "Not later than 50 days after employment, the Union will notify the
Personnel Department in writing whether or not a new employee is acceptable," is
not permissible under the statute because it may reasonably be interpreted as per-
mitting the Union to reject a person as an employee. He argues , moreover, that if
the language be interpreted as referring to acceptance by the Union of an employee
as a union member, then the preceding provision of article III, D becomes objection-
able because, upon a rejection by the Union of any employee as a member, he would
be deprived of any promised wage increase which such preceding provision says will
be paid when the first month's dues are taken out of the employee's pay. The pro-
visions under attack are, to say the least, ambiguous. I believe they may be reason-
ably interpreted in the manner pointed out by the General Counsel. The Filter
Workers, through its president and through its counsel, asserted at the hearing that
the requirement that the Union notify the personnel department within 50 days
whether an employee is acceptable means acceptable as a union member but, in view
of other ambiguous provisions of the contract-such as article XVII, section A,
discussed below-this interpretation is open to question. And it still leaves unex-
plained the provision linking the payment of a promised wage increase with the
deduction of the first month's dues.
The ambiguity in article XVII, section A, to which I have just referred, is conceded
by the Filter Workers' counsel. He contends that as the result of a typographical
error, the word "to" was omitted and that the provision should read that after the
first 60 days of employment "employees may be discharged without recourse by the
Employer or to the Union." I am willing to accept this explanation as to what the
intent was. The contract provision in question, however, should be amended to
disclose this intent for as it now reads, it is reasonably interpreted as permitting the
Union to discharge an employee during the first 60 days of his tenure.
Section B of article XVII, which the General Counsel also attacks, refers to the
discharge and discipline of employees who have completed their 60-day trial period
and who, incidentally, unless rejected by the Union, have become union members.
The General Counsel argues that the third and fourth paragraphs of section B pro-
vide special protection for union members, to the exclusion of nonmembers, against
discriminatory or otherwise unjust discharges . In considering this argument, I have
carefully examined the whole of section B and also article XII which describes the
grievance procedure. The first paragraph of section B provides that the Union shall
promptly consider any claim that an employee who has completed his 60-day trial
period (members of the Union and nonmembers alike) has been unjustly discharged
and may present the matter as a grievance to be settled in accordance with the
established procedure for settlement of grievances ." [Emphasis supplied.] The
established grievance procedure set forth in article XII provides for arbitration as a
final step and that the arbitration panel "is delegated full discretion to reinstate with
or without back pay without reinstatement in all cases." [Emphasis supplied.] The
next to last paragraph of article XVII, section B , now under consideration, also
refers to the right of the arbitration panel to reinstate "with or without back pay"
when referring to all employees who have completed their trial or probationary
period. The third and fourth paragraphs of section B, however, provide that if
"a member of the Union" believes he has been unjustly discharged, such discharge
"shall" constitute a case arising under the grievance procedure and that if it is decided
that the employee has been unjustly discharged, "the Company shall reinstate such
Employee and pay full compensation for all time lost." In may well be that the
4 Cf. The Radio Officers' Union etc (A IT Bull Steamship Company ) v N L R.B , 347
U.S. 17; General Motors Corporation , 13'0 NLRB 481.
5 N.L R.B . v. Cadillac Wire Corp, et al, 290 F 2d 261 , 263 (C.A 2).
1704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties to the contract intended no different treatment for members of the Union and
nonmembers; but in view of those clearly discriminatory provisions of the contract,
such as that requiring that union dues for the first month of employment be deducted
from the employee's pay, other provisions of the contract may understandably be read
more critically than would otherwise be warranted . And, reading section B with a
critical eye , I conclude that an employee could reasonably believe that discriminatory
treatment of employees whose applications for union membership might be rejected
was intended.
2. Respondent's practices in operating under the union-security
provisions of their contract
Respondents assert that although all terms of their contract are "in effect," they have
not operated under such contract in such a way as to require union membership or
the payment of union dues prior to the expiration of 60 days from the date of hire
and have not otherwise discriminated against nonmembers.
It is undisputed that at the time an employee is hired, Personnel Director Elsa
Nottmeyer gives him several forms, including a "checkoff card," to be filled in and
returned to her later. The checkoff card, which also serves as an application for
membership in the Filter Workers,6 reads as follows:
I hereby authorize and direct The Filtron Company, Inc., to deduct Union
dues of $2.00 per month and to pay above said sums to the Filter Workers Group.
Also after ten weeks of employment, I hereby authorize and direct The
Filtron Company, Inc., to deduct Initiation fee of $5.00 of which $2.S0 is to
be taken out of the first week and $2.50 the second week.
Date
Miss Nottmeyer testified, and I find, that when she hands the new employee this
card, she usually tells him, "this explains your union dues and your initiation fee,"
and that "generally," but not always, he fills out this card and other forms given to
him before he goes to work. The card, along with other forms, then goes to the pay-
roll department and from there the card goes to Filter Workers president, Piliero.
As Sid Barry, chairman of Filtron's board of directors, explained, "The understand-
ing was that as a courtesy or convenience to the Union, we would hand the employee
the card along with all of the other Company record cards after he was hired, but
we would accept no responsibility for its return or signature , nor would we make
any dues deductions until the signed card was in our Payroll Department."
Piliero testified , and I find, that he retains the application-checkoff card for at
least 6 weeks , then seeks out the new employee and talks to him. He further testi-
fied, "Then it is required by me to either initial it and say it is okay , or either put a
protest." In practice he has always approved the application and sent it, with his
initials on it, to the payroll department . Upon the expiration of 60 days from the
date of hire, half of the initiation fee is deducted from the employee 's pay; during
the following week, the other half is deducted; and during the succeeding months dues
are deducted . When the first installment of the initiation fee is deducted , the em-
ployee is considered a union member and Piliero or the Union 's secretary delivers
to the employee a card certifying that he is a member in good standing . At the same
time he is given a copy of the Filter Workers ' bylaws and bargaining agreement.
If an employee on his own initiative fails to sign and return the application -checkoff
card to the personnel director , Piliero seeks him out after about 6 weeks and asks
him to sign . No employee has ever refused to sign.
On the basis of the above testimony, I find that in practice no employee has even
been required to join the Filter Workers or pay dues or an initiation fee to it prior
to the expiration of 60 days of employment. -In view of the fact, however, that
Respondent Filtron furnishes to each employee at the time he is hired an application-
checkoff card, which has been supplied to him by the Respondent Filter Workers
for that purpose ; that the personnel director usually tells the new employee that
the card itself explains the dues and initiation fee; that such card does not state
when the employer will start deducting dues, as distinguished from initiation fees,
6 Miss Nottmeyer testified that she never heard of any application for membership in the
Filter Workers and Anthony Piliero, president of the Filter tiVorkers, insisted, when called
as a witness by the General Counsel, that there was no such thing as an application for
membership . Later, however, when recalled as a witness for his union, he testified that
he and his union considered the checkoff card as also an application for membership. I
shall so consider it
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1705
or when his application for membership' will become effective; and that the employee
generally signs the card before starting to work , I find that the natural consequence
of Respondents' practice is to cause the employee to believe, as provided in the
contract, that he must apply for union membership upon being hired and submit to
the deduction of union dues prior to a time when he may be legally required under
the statute to do so. I therefore find, in accordance with the Board's decision in
Argo Steel Construction Company, 122 NLRB 1077, and Cadillac Wire Corpora-
tion, et al., 128 NLRB 1002, that Respondent Filtron has furnished support to the
Filter Workers within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act and that Re-
spondents Filtron and Filter Workers have subjected employees to restraint and
coercion within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) and 8 (b) (1) (A), respectively.
Because, however, no actual discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment has resulted from these practices,
I do not find that a violation of Section 8(a)(3) or 8(b)(2) is involved. Cf.
Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., et al., 122 NLRB 1552,1555; New Orleans Laundries,
Inc., 114 NLRB 1077, 1089.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharges of IUE adherents Izzo and Beniamino and
other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion by Respondent Filtron
About January 10, 1961, the IUE commenced distributing leaflets in front of the
Filtron plant and seeking to organize the employees. Employee Angelo Charles
Izzo (usually called Charlie) soon thereafter joined the IUE and began soliciting
other employees to join. He personally obtained applications for IUE membership
from all employees of the stockroom, in which he worked, and in addition, signed
up several employees outside his department. Also among those active in behalf of
the IUE was Armando Beniamino (sometimes called Nino), employed as a floor-
walker in the short order and sample department. He joined the IUE on January 23,
1961, and thereafter gave an application card to another employee, discussed the
IUE with a number of other employees in the plant, attended an IUE meeting on
the night of January 30, and brought membership application cards to the plant
the next morning . Both Izzo and Beniamino were laid off on January 31 and had
not been recalled at the time of the hearing in June. The General Counsel con-
tends that they were laid off because of their prominence in the IUE organizational
campaign . Respondent Filtron denies this and asserts that it was motivated solely
by economic considerations and that the employees will be recalled when business
conditions improve sufficiently to warrant their recall.
The General Counsel also contends that prior to the layoffs in question, Filtron
coercively interrogated and threatened its employees and engaged in surveillance of
their union activities in order to discourage their membership in the IUE. I set forth
below the evidence relating to these alleged unfair labor practices.
1. Vice President George Barry seeks assistance of Manager Weinstein in
ascertaining whether Izzo is an IUE "agitator"
According to the undenied and credited testimony of Robert Weinstein who, at
all relevant times, was Filtron's material and production control manager,? Vice
President George Barry about 5 p.m. on January 30 called Weinstein aside and told
him that Izzo "was suspected of being a union agitator for the IUE" and that man-
agement "didn't know what they were going to do about it." Barry explained that
someone in the Filter Workers had informed him about Izzo. Weinstein volunteered
to try "to find out if this was the truth, if he was an agitator or not." Barry ad-
monished him to "please find out be be careful, don't . . . ask questions where
they would incriminate the company." Barry also stated that he was going to
discuss Izzo 's alleged IUE connections with someone else.
On the following day, January 31, Weinstein sought out Izzo at his place of work
in the stockroom and, according to his undenied and credited testimony, corroborated
in part by Izzo, the following took place:
Well, I [Weinstein ] told him I had heard that he was suspected of being a
union agitator and I though I had treated him very fairly in the past and I
thought it was his, more or less a friendly gesture or a responsibility to tell me
what was going on.
He said first that nothing was going on and that he didn't understand what
was happening because Mr . Sid Barry had been in the stockroom several mo-
ments before and had asked him several questions in this context with the union,
4 Weinstein voluntarily left Filtron's employ on March 16, 1961.
1706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I believe. . He said he [Barry] asked him did he work at General Steel
and he said yes. He asked him did he know a certain politician and he said
yes. He asked him would he cross that politician and Izzo's answer was no.
In answer to my question about the union agitator, he said no, he wasn't a
union agitator, he was for this union . . . the TUE. I interpreted this as an
expression of opinion.
Weinstein later reported to George Barry that he had not found out anything except
that Izzo was in sympathy with the IUE.
2. Supervisor Coleman's request that employee Shavers warn Beniamino about
Filtron's knowledge of the IUE activities of Beniamino and Izzo
Prior to Weinstein's talk with Izzo on the morning of January 31, other events
took place which should be mentioned at this point. According to the undenied
and credited testimony of Walter Shavers, at about 9 or 9:30 that morning, Stock-
room Supervisor William Coleman stopped him and asked him to warn "Nino"
Beniamino that his name, along with Izzo's, had been turned in that morning for
having passed out cards "from the other Union," the IUE, to Filtron workers.8 He
testified that he passed along this warning to Beniamino at about 10 o'clock that
morning and to Izzo about 3:15 or 3:30 that afternoon.9
3. Board Chairman Sid Barry's talk with Izzo
About 10:30 on the same morning, Sid Barry, chairman of Filtron's board of
directors and father of Vice President George Barry, sought out Izzo at his place of
work in the stockroom. There is substantial disagreement between Sid Barry and
other witnesses as to what was said at that time. To understand the testimony as to
what was allegedly said, I shall backtrack at this point to explain that Izzo had
formerly worked for General Steel whose owner or "boss" was Tom Kearns; that
Sid Barry hired Izzo in February 1960 at the request of and as a personal favor to one
Cosmo (Gus) Cavalusso, who held a political job as a district captain of one section
of New York City; and that during Izzo's 60-day probationary period, he was about
to be discharged because of absenteeism, when Barry, having in mind Cavalusso's
friendship for and interest in Izzo, personally interceded and saved Izzo's job.
Izzo's version of what occurred on the occasion in question is as follows: As Barry
entered the stockroom, he inquired, "Who is Charlie?" Izzo identified himself,
whereupon Barry asked whether he was the Charlie who had worked for General
Steel for 71/z years and with Tom Kearns and whether he knew Cavalusso. Izzo
replied in the affirmative to each of these questions. Thereupon, Barry asked, "You
wouldn't cross me, would you?" and walked away.
Robert Dunnenfeld, a stock cleark and group leader, was at his place of work in
the front of the stockroom at the time Barry visited Izzo. He testified that Barry
8I find, despite Filtron's challenge of Coleman's supervisory status, that he was a super-
visor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act He was in immediate charge of the
two stockrooms and had seven employees, including a group leader, under him It was
his duty, in connection with receiving and storing materials, shipping component parts to
the production floor and processing raw materials, to have the bills of materials posted to
the stock records, cheek the availability of materials, make purchasing requests for any in
short supply schedule the work among employees under him, and work with them in meet-
ing time schedules for supplying materials to the assembly line. He was consulted by
Material and Production Control Manager Weinstein in connection with the grant of wage
increases and the retention or firing of probationary employees and his recommendations
were usually followed He reprimanded employees under him and, upon occasions, made
recommendations for discharges or the transfer of employees and those recommendations
were generally followed _ Prior to being made stockroom supervisor, he was a member of
the Filter Workers, but nursuant to Filtron's policy against participation by supervisors
in union affairs, resigned his membership
e According to Reniamino's credited testimony, Shavers told him, "They have your name
and Charlie's in Sid Barry's office.". Izzo testified, and I find, that Shavers told him that
his and Beniamino's names were on' a list in the office to be laid off "for having attended an
IUE meeting." Izzo placed this warning as having been received before 8 a in but I am
convinced that he was mistaken as to the time and that it occurred in the afternoon, as
Shavers testified. To the extent that Shavers' warning to Beniamino and Izzo went beyond
that communicated by Supervisor Coleman to Shavers, I do not, of course, attribute
responsibility therefor to Respondent Filtron
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1707
went toward the back of the stockroom and "asked for Charlie"; that he did not hear
all of Barry's conversation with Izzo but did hear Barry say, as he was leaving: "Gus
Cavalusso recommended you for the job. You wouldn't want to do anything to cross
him, would you?"
Sid Barry's account of his talk with Izzo was quite different and in most respects
irreconcilable with the accounts of Izzo and Dunnenfeld. He testified that when he
entered the stockroom, he asked "Where's Charlie," not "Who is Charlie," as claimed
by Izzo.10 With respect to the substance of his talk with Izzo, Barry testified: "I
told him that I had done my best to keep him as an employee in spite of lateness and
absentee reports on him and grievances, but that due to the general decrease in busi-
ness and the absolute necessity of decreasing our payroll we were going to have to
lay off some people and his seniority position was reached and I could not fight with
the Union about it. Therefore, I just had to put through his recommendation as
being the next one to go out of that section of work in the plant." Barry conceded
that Cavalusso's name was mentioned in his talk with Izzo but denied that he asked
Izzo whether he knew Cavalusso, whether he was the Charlie who had worked for
General Steel for 71/z years or whether he had worked under Tom Kearns. Barry
also denied saying to Izzo, "You wouldn't cross me, would you?" or "You wouldn't
cross him, would you?" Barry did not explain in what connection Cavalusso's name
was mentioned.
A resolution of these conflicting versions as to what Barry said to Izzo has not
been an easy task. I am, however, convinced from the testimony of Dunnenfeld,
who particularly impressed me as an honest and conscientious witness, that Barry,
among other things, remarked that Cavalusso had recommended Izzo for his job and
stated in substance to Izzo, "You wouldn't want to do anything to cross him, would
you?" That this remark was interpreted by Izzo as a warning against engaging in
IUE activities is evidenced by his statement to Material and Production Control
Manager Weinstein a few minutes later when Weinstein inquired about the rumors
that Izzo was an TUE agitator. As Weinstein testified, Izzo, in responding to Wein-
stein's inquiry, said that "he didn't understand what was happening because Mr. Sid
Barry had been in the stock room several moments before and had asked him several
questions in this context with the union." In all the circumstances, I find that Izzo
reasonably interpreted this remark and that Barry intended by the remark to warn
Izzo that because of his IUE activities, his friendship with Cavalusso would no longer
save him from layoff or discharge.
The above conclusion, however, does not mean that Barry did not also inform
Izzo of the probability of an imminent layoff and of the fact that because of Izzo's
lack of seniority and the Filter Workers' insistence on seniority being followed, Izzo
would be the next stockroom employee selected for layoff. Although Barry may not
have made this as clear to Izzo as his testimony might indicate,1 am convinced even
from Izzo's own testimony that Barry said something to him about the possibility
of his being laid off. Thus, Izzo testified that at noon on the day Barry talked to
him, he sought out Piliero who, as president of the Filter Workers, always received
advance notice of the employees scheduled for layoff. Izzo spoke to Piliero, he
testified, because "I wanted to find out what was the idea of Mr. Barry addressing
me as such" and Piliero told him: "Don't pay it no mind. It is probably only a
rumor." Piliero was responding to what Izzo had reported and the "rumor" must
have had reference to a proposed layoff. Indeed, except to ascertain whether his
name had been furnished Piliero in connection with a proposed layoff, it seems
unlikely that Izzo, a leader of the TUE group, would have sought out Piliero, head
of the opposition group, to discuss his problem.
4. Sid Barry's talk to the assembled employees on the afternoon of January 31
At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon on January 31, Filtron's approximately 150
employees were summoned to a meeting and addressed by Sid Barry. Employees
Izzo, Beniamino, Dunnenfeld, and Shavers, Supervisor Coleman, Manager Wein-
stein, and Barry himself testified with respect to the speech. Dunnenfeld and Shavers
remembered very little of what was said and none of the others were in complete
agreement . Nevertheless, except for Barry, most of the others were in substantial
accord as to the speech as a whole. I have carefully weighed the testimony of each
10 In this respect, Barry's version appears more reasonable, for Barry had spoken to Izzo
on one or more prior occasions and it is likely that he remembered which employee was Izzo
On the other hand, it is quite probable that laze misunderstood Barry's initial inquiry
1708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATICNS BOARD
of the witnesses and set forth below an account of the speech which I believe to be
substantially accurate-based on the testimony I consider most reliable and giving
due weight to Barry's denials and explanations.
In his opening remarks Barry commented that the IUE was distributing leaflets
or attempting to organize the plant again, as it did practically every year, but that it
never had any success. He stated that the IUE had promised to bring in more busi-
ness and, if that was the case, he would welcome it; that he did not care which union
was in the plant so long as it brought the Company more business. He had with him
three IUE leaflets-colored green, blue, and yellow-and displayed them to the group
as he remarked, "The next one will probably be a pink one." He then tore the
leaflets up and threw them on the floor. He told the employees, "We have been
doing all right with our union for the past 8 years."
Barry informed the employees that he knew which of them were "pushing" the
IUE or were "agitators" for it. He stated that he had a "grapevine" that was as
good as anybody's. He illustrated his point by telling them that a lady could be
polishing her nails at one end of the plant and people at the other end would know
about it and also that he learned through the grapevine that "Blue Cross-Blue Shield"
had refused to ,pay a hospital and medical bill of one of the employees and that he
had interceded and caused it to be paid. He added that Filtron had voluntarily
supplied the employees with this insurance, without any cost to them, and had pro-
vided for it in the contract with the Filter Workers, though the latter had not asked
for it.
Barry also informed the employees that Filtron had been operating at a loss of
about $300,000 during the preceding year; that it was then carrying on its payroll
30 or 40 more employees than it really needed; but that he was leaving within a few
days on a 6- to 7-week trip to the South Seas where he hoped that he would get
enough new business to warrant retaining these people.
Finally, he stated that he hoped a new contract with the Filter Workers could be
signed by the end of the week, before he left on his trip, because he thought this
would relieve the tension among the employees caused by the dispute between the
two unions."
The General Counsel contends that in his speech Barry informed the employees
that Filtron was engaging in surveillance of their IUE activities and that he so
informed them for the purpose of intimidating them and discouraging their IUE
membership and activities. I do not regard Barry's reference to having a "grape-
vine" as the equivalent of an announcement that Filtron was engaging in surveillance
of the employees' union activities but Barry clearly intended that the employees be
aware of the fact that he knew about everything that went on at the plant, and his
pointed observation that he knew which of the employees were pushing, or were
agitators, for the IUE was unquestionably coercive in character. This remark, in the
context of his subtle ridicule and disparagement of the IUE, could hardly have
failed to cause those employees who had been active in behalf of the IUE to fear
job reprisals and it therefore constituted a violation of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
5. The layoffs of Izzo and Beniamino
Filtron's contract with the Filter Workers requires it to give reasonable notice in
writing, when practicable, of all proposed layoffs. Prior to giving such written notice
Filtron usually also notifies the Union's president orally and affords him an oppor-
tunity to object. This procedure was followed in the cases of Izzo and Beniamino.
Sometime after 2 p.m. on January 31, Personnell Director Nottmeyer delivered to
Filter Workers' president, Piliero, a memorandum informing him of the proposed
layoff of Izzo and Beniamino that same day. Piliero had already been informed by
Vice President George Barry of the scheduled layoffs and had discussed them with
both Barry and Plant Superintendent Joe Lametta, who shared the same office. The
executive committee of the Filter Workers met at about 4 p.m., while Sid Barry
was addressing the other employees, and discussed and approved the proposed layoffs.
According to Filter Workers' secretary, Mooney, the committeemen "all agreed
that because of their absneteeism and the least seniority in their departments," man-
agement was warranted in selecting Izzo and Beniamino for the layoffs. Beniamino,
in fact, was not the least senior in his department, and although Izzo was the least
n The then-current contract was not to expire until April 3, 1961 , but, under its terms,
the parties were to meet between November 15 and December 15, 1960, to negotiate the
terms of a new contract.
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1709
senior in the stockroom, he was not lowest in plant seniority, the criterion provided
in the Filter Workers' contract for layoffs.12
Within a few minutes after the conclusion of Sid Barry's address to the employees,
Personnel Director Nottmeyer informed Izzo and Beniamino that they were being
laid off. According to Izzo, the reason assigned to him. was his absenteeism. Accord-
ing to Beniamino, the reason assigned to him was his attendance record. Nottmeyer,
on the other hand, testified that she told Izzo .that she laying him off because
he had the least seniority in his department and business was slow and that she told
Beniamino he was being laid off because his position was being eliminated and busi-
ness was slow. This, according to Barry, was in accordance with directions which
he gave Nottmeyer earlier that day. On the basis of all the evidence, I will assume
that she assigned to Izzo and Beniamino both the reasons about which she testified
and those about which they testified.13
Sid Barry testified that for the fiscal year ending July 1, 1960, Filtron suffered a
loss of $255,000 and that for the first half of the next fiscal year its loss was between
$12,000 and $15,000; that at a meeting in July 1960 between company officials, their
accounting firm, and their legal firm, it was decided that in view of the business losses,
some employees should be laid off. No layoffs, however, were to be effected until
after Labor Day when it could be determined how many employees would fail to
return from their vacations. Barry testified that in determining who should be
selected for layoff, it was decided that first consideration would be given to seniority,
as provided in the union contract, but that seniority would not be followed so
rigidly as to strip one department of too many employees, and that due consideration
was to begiven to management "grievances" (written complaints) against the em-
ployees. Thereafter 15 employees were laid off on November 18, 1960; 1 on Novem-
ber 21; 7 on December 2; 1 on Decmeber 10; 2 on January 10, 1961; 23 on Janu-
ary 19; 2 (those here in issue ) on January 31; 3 on March 17; and 6 on April 18.
Barry testified that the layoffs of Izzo and Beniamino on January 31 were motivated
by the same business considerations as those resulting in the other layoffs and that
the selection of these two employees was on the basis decided upon during the
preceding July. He conceded, however, that departmental seniority, rather than
plant seniority provided by the contract, was followed in selecting Izzo. He also
conceded that seniority was not followed in the selection of Beniamino for layoff.
As to him, Barry stated, "It was just a matter of finding which jobs through the plant
could be eliminated."
Ex-Material and Production Control Manager Weinstein also testified that Filtron
had been suffering a decrease in its business and that he had discussed general lay-
offs, and specific employees to be effected, with Vice President George Barry during
the late fall and early winter of 1960 to 1961. He had not, however, been consulted
about the January 31 layoffs even though Izzo was under his general supervision.
He expressed the opinion that because of the decrease in business , layoffs were
12 The contract (article XIV) provided that :
. .. Where reduction in the working force becomes necessary because of fluctuations
in business or other conditions beyond the control of the Employer, the Employer shall
give proper recognition to the length of the employee's service
. .. Seniority shall apply to length of employment with the Company regardless of
departments .
In case of layoff, senior qualified Employees shall receive preference in remaining on
jobs, so far as practicable. The Employer shall have the right to make such deter-
mination, subject to grievance only where the Union charges management with arbi-
trary or discriminatory conduct.
On [sic] case of layoffs, senior Employees shall be retained if they have "ability and
competence" to perform remaining jobs. By ability is meant "aptitude to learn the
job in the normal or given training period two (2) weeks," and by competence is
meant "efficiency and proficiency or capacity to perform the job with few instructions
after a short trial or breaking in period. . . .
That in case of layoff, that is, a reduction in the work force, Employees shall be
permitted to bump workers with less seniority provided they are capable of performing
the work without any additional training.
13 Evidence was adduced to show that due to Izzo's excessive absenteeism during the first
60 days of his employment, management issued a "grievance" against him which, because
it occurred during his probationary period, would have resulted in his discharge but for
Sid Barry's intervention; but that thereafter Izzo's attendance record improved substan-
tially. There is also evidence that Beniamino had received two management grievances for
being late to work but that he, too, had thereafter improved.
1710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"called for," and stated that if a layoff for business reasons was decided upon, Izzo,
on a departmental seniority basis, would be a logical person to select.
I am convinced, on the basis of all the evidence, that the layoff of two employees,
and perhaps more, on January 31 was economically justifiable. Indeed, I have no
doubt, as Sid Barry informed the employees on January 31, that Filtron was carrying
30 or 40 more employees on its payroll than were needed and that more reductions
in force than those already effected were to be expected if Barry's business trip
abroad did not result, as he hoped, in more business.
These conclusions, however, do not resolve the issue before me, which is whether
Izzo and Beniamino would have been laid off on January 31 but for their IUE
activities. Why, if those activities were not the determining factor, did George
Barry on January 30 call Weinstein aside, tell him of the report that Izzo was an
"agitator" for the IUE, and invite his assistance in confirming the report. And why
did Barry, in referring to the fact that Izzo was suspected of being an IUE agitator,
state that management representatives "didn't know what they were going to do
about it." George Barry, though not shown to be unavailable, was not called to
explain his conduct. What, too, is the explanation for Supervisor Coleman's request
early on January 31 that Shavers warn Beniamino that his and Izzo's names had been
turned in for distributing IUE cards to Filtron employees. Filtron has not attempted
to answer these and other puzzling questions which reflect upon the sincerity of its
professed motivations.
Despite Sid Barry's asserted ignorance of the IUE activities of Izzo and Beniamino
prior to their layoffs, I am convinced that he and other management representatives
responsible for the layoffs did know of such activities. The IUE activities of both
Izzo and Beniamino were open and known to both their supervisors and to a number
of the employees. Jack Metzger, supervisor of the short order and sample depart-
ment where Beniamino worked, testified, and I find, that he had reprimanded
Beniamino on at least two occasions prior to January 31 for talking about the IUE
during working hours-once just after the IUE started distributing leaflets and again
on January 30.14 Moreover, on the morning of January 31, according to the
credited testimony of Beniamino, after he observed Metzer talking to employee
Shavers and pointing to Beniamino, the latter asked what was wrong and Metzger
replied, "I don't want you to talk about any union, whether you are on the break,
lunch or anywhere near the plant." 15 Supervisor Coleman also admittedly knew of
the IUE activities not only of Izzo and others in the stockroom but of Beniamino too.
He heard Beniamino discussing the IUE when he came to the stockroom; knew that
all stockroom employees had signed IUE cards; heard Dunnenfeld tell Izzo on the
morning of January 31 that the IUE needed six or seven more cards signed before
there could be an election to decide which union the employees wanted; 16 heard
Georgiana Trachulec, the Filter Workers' treasurer, accuse Izzo, on the morning of
January 31, of attending the IUE meeting held on the night before; and knew that
Dunnenfeld and Shavers had attended that meeting and that Izzo had denied attend-
ing it. Coleman further testified, and I find, that discussion of the IUE was at its
peak about January 30, that "everybody" was talking about union activities at the
14 Metzger was clearly a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. He
has between 7 and 12 employees under him and is paid a salary about twice the amount
received by most of those under him He is responsible for seeing that the work in his
department is done correctly and that time schedules are met. In meeting time schedules,
he obtains authorizations for overtime work when necessary and designates the employees
who are to work overtime. At the request of the personnel director, he interviews appli-
cants for employment and his recommendations with respect to their employment or rejec-
tion are customarily followed. He distributes and assigns work in accordance with his
evaluation of the employees' capabilities. He channels employee requests for promotion,
with his recommendations attached. He also reprimands employees under him and main-
tains order in his department. He checks the employees' timecards, initials their over-
time cards, and sees that the employees are present in their work areas Like Coleman,
he resigned as a member of the Filter Workers upon being made a supervisor
13 According to Beniamino's undenied and credited testimony, Metzger during the after-
noon came into the laboratory, complaining that everyone was giving him trouble that day,
and explained that he had just come out of Sid Barry's office and "I won't be surprised if
most of you get fired by tomorrow " When Beniamino inquired why, Metzger replied,
"Absence or lateness, that's reason enough " I draw no conclusion, however, on the basis
of this incident, that Metzger had informed Barry of Beniamino's IUE activities or that
Barry informed Metzger of his decision to lay Beniamino off
16
This statement apparently was in reference to the Board's requirement in Section
101.18 of its Statements of Procedure (Series 8) that a union must be designated by at
least 30 percent of the employees before the Board will process a representation petition.
FILTRON COMPANY, INC. 1711
plant, and that he discussed it with the employees and with his immediate supervisor,
Weinstein. Whether or not Supervisors Coleman and Metzger informed higher
management of the IUE activities of Izzo and Beniamino, I have no doubt, in view
of all the evidence, that management, as Sid Barry told the employees, had a good
"grapevine" and knew which employees were "pushing" the IUE.
I am further convinced, and find, on the basis of the whole record, that the layoffs
of Izzo and Beniamino on January 31 were discriminatorily motivated. It is obvious
from the testimony even of Sid Barry that despite the fact that Filtron on January 31
was carrying at least 30 more employees on its payroll than were needed, no decision
had been made prior to that date to effect the two layoffs in question. The decision,
I believe, was precipitated by Filtron's discovery that Izzo, who, because of his
political connections, had received preferred treatment in the past, was among those
"agitating" for the IUE-conduct obviously considered as disloyalty to Filtron and
Izzo's sponsor. So concerned was Vice President George Barry with the report he
had received about Izzo's IUE activities that on January 30, he sought Weinstein's
assistance in confirming the report, at the same time expressing indecision as to
"what they were going to do about it"; and Sid Barry on the next day could not resist
expressing his chargin by remarking to Izzo, "You wouldn't cross him [Cavalusso],
would you?" Moreover, Supervisor Coleman's attempt early in the morning on
January 31 to get word to Beniamino that his and Izzo's names had been turned in
to management for having distributed IUE cards to Filtron workers and Super-
visor Metzger's admonition that morning to Beniamino not to discuss a union any-
where near the plant, whereas on prior occasions he had merely requested Beniamino
not to discuss the IUE during working hours, suggest to me that these supervisors had
recently acquired some knowledge of possible recriminations against such employees
and were seeking to protect them. Accordingly, despite the fact that economic
justification for the layoff of 30 or 40 employees on'January.31 may have existed,
I find that Filtron would not have laid off Izzo and Beniamino on January 31, but
instead, would have retained them as it did the others except for the IUE member-
ship and activities of Izzo and Beniamino . Their layoffs, therefore, were in violation
of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
In view of my conclusion stated above, I find it unnecessary to and do not decide
whether, absent a discriminatory motivation, Filtron would thereafter have laid off
Izzo and Beniamino . This question can more readily be determined at the compli-
ance stage of this proceeding, when, taking into account the pattern followed by
Filtron in other layoffs since its retrenchment program started on November 18,
1960, the extent to which Filtron followed the plant seniority provisions of its con-
tract will be more apparent.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents Filtron and the Filter Workers have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, my Recommended Order will direct that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
I have found that the collective-bargaining agreements which Respondent have
entered into and maintained in effect contain certain unlawful union-security and
other provisions which discriminate against employees on the basis of whether or
not they have joined or applied for membership in the Filter Workers. These pro-
visions, as the Filter Workers' counsel explained, were in an old contract form
adopted by the negotiators, and I am convinced that the illegal provisions were
carried over from one contract term to another without any thought being given
to them and without any intention of requiring union membership or the payment
of union dues or initiation fees prior to the expiration of 60 days from the date of
employment or otherwise discriminating against nonunion employees. In practice,
no one was permitted to join before he had been employed for 60 days and no
initiation fee or dues was ever deducted prior to that time. Moreover, if an em-
ployee left the Company's employ before the expiration of 90 days, it was the Filter
Workers' practice to refund to him any initiation fee or dues which had been de-
ducted from his pay. In these circumstances, although Respondents must be re-
quired to clean up their contract by eliminating the illegal provisions hereinbefore
pointed out, I do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to set
aside the entire contract or condition Filtron's recognition of the Filter Workers on
the latter's certification in a Board-conducted election, as is usually, required where
a union has been unlawfully assisted.17 Here, the illegal contract provisions are
17 See Pan Atlantic Steamship Company , 132 NLRB 868 ; Argo Steel Construction Com-
pany, 122 NLRB 1077.
1712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
severable from the remainder of the contract and, in the interest of industrial peace
and stability, I do not believe it necessary to disturb the long-established contractual
relationship between the parties in order to protect the employees' rights. Nordberg-
Selah Fruit, Inc., Nordberg-Westbrook Fruit, Inc., 126 NLRB 714; N.L.R.B. v.
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 113, Guided Missile Lodge 1254
(Convair, a Division of General Dynamics Corp.), 241 F. 2d 695 (C.A. 9).
To be sure, employees were given application-checkoff cards, along with other
forms to be signed, at the time they were hired, and if any employee had not signed
by the end of 6 weeks of employment, Piliero sought him out and asked him to sign,
thus reasonably causing such employee to believe that he was required at the outset
to signify his willingness to join at the expiration of 60 days from date of employ-
ment and perhaps to pay dues before that time. But in view of the fact that no
employee was in practice required or even permitted to join or pay dues or initiation
fees in the Filter Workers prior to 60 days of employment or was otherwise dis-
criminated against because of his nonmembership in the Filter Workers, I cannot
view the premature request, or even requirement, that an employee sign the appli-
cation-checkoff authorization card as a serious breach of statutorily protected em-
ployee rights. An order requiring Respondents to cease and desist from this practice
should be sufficient.
In view of my finding that Filtron was discriminatorily motivated in laying off
employees Izzo and Beniamino on January 31, 1961, my Recommended Order will
require Filtron to place them, insofar as possible, in the same situation they would
be in had the discrimination not occurred. Although, as I have found, they would
not have been laid off on January 31 but for the discriminatory motivation, it is
possible, in view of Filtron's retrenchment program, that they would in any event
have been laid off at a subsequent date. To order them reinstated at this time to
their old or substantially equivalent jobs might result in unwarranted preference
being accorded them,to the detriment of other employees who would have retained
their jobs even in the absence of discrimination against Izzo and Beniamino. My
Recommended Order will therefore require Filtron only to offer them reinstatement
to the same employee status, rights and privileges they would have enjoyed but for
the discrimination against them and to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of such discrimination.18 In other words, if at the compliance stage of
this proceeding, it appears from an examination of the pattern followed by Filtron
in effecting other layoffs during the retrenchment period beginning on November 18,
1960, and from other relevant factors, that Izzo and Beniamino would not yet have
been reached for layoff, then Filtron shall be required to offer them immediate
reinstatement to their old or substantially equivalent positions; but if it appears that,
in any event, they would have been reached for layoff at some date subsequent to
January 31, then Filtron will merely be required to retain Izzo and Beniamino on its
list of employees to be recalled and to recall them in a nondiscriminatory manner
in accordance with its established practice of recalling its laid-off employees.
In making Izzo and Beniamino whole for any losses of pay suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them, my Recommended Order will require Filtron to
pay to each of them a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have
earned in Filtron's employ from the date of his layoff to the date upon which he is
offered reinstatement or would have been reached for layoff on a nondiscriminatory
basis in accordance with the formula established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By entering into and maintaining in effect a collective -bargaining agreement
which requires, as a condition of employment, that an employee, upon applying for
a job, shall file an application for membership in the Filter Workers Group, which
requires the deduction by Filtron of union dues prior to the 30-day delay period re-
quired by the statute for valid union-security agreements, and which otherwise dis-
criminates against employees on the basis of their membership or lack of member-
ship in the Filter Workers Group, Respondent Filtron has violated Section 8(a).(1),
(2), and (3) of the Act and Respondent Filter Workers has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2 ) of the Act.
2. By supplying each new employee at the time he is hired with a dues checkoff
authorization card without making it clear to him that he is not required to apply
for membership in the Filter Workers or pay dues to it prior to a date when he may
be legally required under the collective-bargaining agreement to join the Filter
Workers, Respondent Filtron has furnished support to the Filter Workers, in viola-
18 Cf. N.L R.B. v. Biscayne Television Corporation , 289 P 2d 338 (C A. 5).
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1713
tion of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, and has interfered with, restrained , and coerced
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act,
thereby violating Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act; and Respondent Filter Workers, by
supplying to Filtron the dues checkoff authorization cards for the purpose of dis-
tribution in the manner above described , has restrained and coerced employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
3. Respondent Filtron, by coercively interrogating employees in regard to their
union activities , and by warning and informing employees that it knew of their
activities in behalf of the Union seeking to organize its plant, thereby making veiled
threats of reprisal against employees engaging in union activities , has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Respondent Filtron, by laying off employees Izzo and Beniamino because of
their IUE membership and activities , has discriminated against them within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondents Filtron and the Filter Workers have not, as alleged in the com-
plaint, violated Section 8( a)(3) and 8( b)(2), respectively, by enforcing the unlawful
provisions of their collective-bargaining agreement.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, and its Agent, Robert J. Danckert ; International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
Local Union 905, and its Agents, Johnie Locke , Albert Cox,
Lee Roy King, and Neal Reece and The Sperry Rubber &
Plastics Company. Case No. 25-CB-450. December ^?9, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 6, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as it Order the Recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the modification that provision (2) read: "Notify the
134 NLRB No. 165.
630849-62-vol. 134-109