Firedoor Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1123 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1123
a close, intimate , and substantial relation 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.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of the employees named heretofore in section III by discharg-
ing each of them in the year 1959 as set forth above, the Trial Examiner will recom-
mend that the Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges and make each of them whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against him by the payment to
him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent in the instant case are
such as to indicate an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally.
In order , therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of
the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,
and to effectuate the policies of the Act , it will be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discharging David Garrett, Lorenzo Julio, David Kendall, Frank Zombo,
Dominic Viviano, Richard Masters , Saverio Franze , Ernest Provost , Raymond
Templin, Gus Stavropoulus , William Hanuschock, and Raymond A. Jerzewski, thus
discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of each of them be-
cause he engaged in union activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By thus interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has committed
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Firedoor Corporation of America and Architectural and Engi-
neering Guild , Local 66, American Federation of Technical
Engineers, AFL-CIO
Firedoor Corporation of America and Architectural and Engi-
neering Guild , Local 66, American Federation of Technical
Engineers , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2-CA-6493 and 2-CA-6628.
June 15, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 9, 1960, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
127 NLRB No. 144.
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions 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 proceeding to a
three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
modifications :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that by the following inci-
dents the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced em-
ployees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act :1
(a) In November and December 1958, the Respondent asked the
employees about their union membership and prepared a petition
addressed to the Board which the employees were requested to sign,
to the effect that the Union 2 did not have the support of the employees.
Vice President Bernard A. Schecter at an employee meeting on De-
cember 12,1958, told the assembled employees who, with one exception,
did not comply with the request, that the signing of the petition would
have been a vote of confidence in the Respondent, that certain benefits
were canceled, and that they had to decide then and there whether
they wanted the Union to represent them even though the Union's
petition for an election was pending before the Board.
(b) Supervisor Barry Mirsky on January 19, 1959, showed em-
ployees a copy of a collective-bargaining contract between the Union
and another employer in the same industry as the Respondent, and
conveyed to the employees the statement of Bernard J. Sussman, the
Respondent's president, that Sussman would give them anything in
the contract if they bargained directly with the Respondent and
abandoned the Union.
(c) In January and February 1959, Sussman requested employee
Alvin Zeleznick to assist him in his efforts to cause the employees to,
abandon the Union.
(d) In February 1959, Schecter told employees Angel Garbizu and
Raymond Orsi that they could not be given wage increases because the
other employees wanted to get into the Union. Schecter also requested
'The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent engaged in coercive conduct on
January 5 , 1959, by making "subtle threats" and promises of benefits to the employees.
We find it unnecessary to pass upon this finding of the Trial Examiner as these state-
ments would be cumulative
2 Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Labor Techni-
cal Engineers , AFL-CIO
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1125
Orsi in the same month to persuade the employees to drop out of the
Union in order to obtain wage increases.
(e) In February 1959, Mirsky told Orsi that the wage increase
could not be given because the other employees wanted the Union.
(f) On April 17, 1959, Schecter told the employees that it would
be their last chance for any kind of private negotiations because the
Board election was to occur the following week, and that the Respond-
ent would be glad to negotiate privately if the employees desired it
that way.
2. The Trial Examiner found that although Alvin Zeleznick and
Richard Campagnola were not closely associated with union activity,
they were nevertheless discriminatorily discharged on March 13,
1959. While we do not pass upon the rationale of the Trial Examiner,
we concur in his conclusion for the following reasons :
As already indicated, the discharges occurred during a period when
the Respondent was making a series of coercive statements which
clearly demonstrate its union animus. Moreover, we agree with the
Trial Examiner that during this period the Respondent showed its
antagonism to the Union in actively supporting the formation and
administration of the employee bargaining committee in violation of
Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
The record shows that Zeleznick favored the Union, spoke out
against company union contracts as ineffective, and refused to comply
with the Respondent's request that he withdraw from the Union or
persuade other employees to do so. It is also clear that the Respond-
ent's conduct revealed its belief that Zeleznick was an active and out-
standing union adherent and leader. Similarly, Campagnola was a
leader in the Union's organizational campaign and also refused to
comply with the Respondent's request that he oppose the Union.
The Respondent's efforts to enlist Zeleznick's support to defeat the
Union began soon after it received the Union's letter, dated November
24, 1958, in which the Respondent was informed that the Union rep-
resented a majority of the employees and was filing a petition for a
Board election. Although Zeleznick denied on three subsequent oc-
casions that he was in the Union or had any knowledge as to which
employees were active in the Union, Mirsky about December 11, 1958,
nevertheless asked Zeleznick to sign the petition to the Board prepared
by the Respondent stating that the employees had not been contacted
by the Union and that they revoked all action taken by it. Zeleznick
refused to do so indicating that he would find out "what this entire
union matter was about." Although Mirsky declared that he could
not understand why Zeleznick did not sign the petition in view of all
the benefits conferred on Zeleznick by the Respondent, the latter still
refused to do so and said he would give credit to the other employees
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
0
who did not sign the petition. Mirsky then told Zeleznick he would
be sorry for the attitude he was taking.
That the Respondent was convinced that Zeleznick was prominent
in union activity is shown by,Schecter's remarks to Zeleznick during
the period between December 11, 1958, and March 13, 1959, when
Schecter often greeted Zeleznick with the words "Hello, shop
steward. How's the ring leader? What's new with the Union?"
,On January 5, 1959, following the suggestion of Respondent's presi-
dent, Sussman, that the employees form a group and bargain with the
Respondent, Zeleznick asked Sussman if it were not true that company
union contracts were not worth the paper they were written on.
At the end of January 1959, and again a month later, Sussman
summoned Zeleznick to his office and, after pointing out all the benefits
conferred on Zeleznick by the Respondent and saying that Zeleznick
had promised not to join the Union, Sussman invited Zeleznick as
"senior man" to talk his fellow employees out of joining the Union.
Upon Zeleznick's denial that he made such a promise and rejection of
the invitation, Sussman suggested that Zeleznick discuss the matter
with his wife. Zeleznick did speak to his wife and as a result signed
a union card.
On March 13, 1959, Sussman informed Zeleznick that he was being
laid off because work was slow. That evening Zeleznick telephoned
Mirsky who said the union situation had gotten out of hand and that
there was nothing he could do to change the minds of Sussman and
Schecter about the layoff.
As already noted, Campagnola took a leading role in organizing the
Union. Thus, during the last week of October 1958, Campagnola,
along with employee Albert Romano, met a member of the Union's
executive board and soon thereafter distributed authorization cards
to the employees. Subsequent to a meeting at the union hall, Cam-
pagnola and Romano collected these cards. Campagnola also collected
union dues from certain employees. In addition, Campagnola was
one of the employees asked by Mirsky on December 10, 1958, if he was
a member of the Union, and one of the employees who refused to
comply with Mirsky's request that he sign the Respondent-prepared
petition to the Board.
On March 13, 1959, the day of the Zeleznick discharge, Sussman
told Campagnola he was laid off for lack of work. Campagnola then
went to see Mirsky and referred to their conversation of mid-January
1959, in which Campagnola, who was planning to get married, was
assured that his job was secure. Mirsky replied, "You know the rea-
son why I can't help you."
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Zeleznick and Cam-
pagnola were discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section
8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. As for the Respondent's defense that
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1127
the discharges were for economic reasons, we find no merit therein.
Despite a purported decline in sales between October and the end of
December 1958,3 it is significant that Sussman early in January 1959
assured the employees that they need not fear losing their jobs. More-
over, as the Trial Examiner states, it is difficult to reconcile the Re-
spondent's interest in retaining certain trainees because of the invest-
ment they represented with the Respondent's lack of concern with
the much larger investment the Respondent had in Zeleznick and
Campagnola who had more years of experience and greater skill.'
We note our dissenting colleague's summary conclusion, unsupported
by any facts or logic, that these employees were not discharged in
violation of the Act. We must reject the suggestion that our inde-
pendent analysis of the record facts, which differs somewhat from that
of the Trial Examiner, is an attempt to rewrite the Intermediate-
Report.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Firedoor Corpora-
tion of America, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Architectural and Engineering
Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharg-
ing employees or refusing to reinstate them, or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment, except to the
extent permitted by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
(b) Interrogating its employees as to their union activities, in-
terests, or affiliations, in a manner constituting interference, restraint,,
or coercion.
(c) Threatening its employees with reprisals, including loss of
employment, if they engage in union or other concerted activities, or
do not engage in union or other concerted activity initiated or sup-
ported by Respondent.
(d) Promising benefits to its employees if they do not engage in
union or other concerted activity or if they engage in union or con-
certed activity initiated or supported by Respondent.
3 The sales figures supplied by the Respondent at the hearing are those given in the
Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner through an inadvertent error incorrectly cites
these figures.
4 Board Member Rodgers does not join in the finding that Zeleznick and Campagnola
were discriminatorily discharged in violation of the Act. In his opinion, the General
Counsel has not sustained the burden of proof in this respect ; and neither the Inter-
mediate Report nor the "rewrite" by his colleagues , is sufficient to overcome this patent]*
fatal defect in the case
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Dominating, interfering with, or furnishing financial or other
support to the formation of any labor organization of its employees.
(f) Dominating, interfering with, or furnishing financial or other
support to the administration of the employee bargaining committee,
or any other labor organization of its employees.
(g) Recognizing the employee bargaining committee, or any suc-
,cessor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
(h) Giving effect to the agreement of April 22, 1959, and any and
all contracts or agreements, supplements thereto, or modifications
thereof, or any superseding contracts, with the employee bargaining
committee, but Respondent is not hereby required to vary the wages,
hours, or other conditions of employment embodied in the April 22,
1959, agreement or heretofore established.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Architectural and Engineering
Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, 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 to refrain from any or all such activities, 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) Offer Alvin Zeleznick and Richard Campagnola immediate and
full reinstatement, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, to their former or substantially equivalent
positions.
(b) Make Zeleznick and Campagnola whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner
set forth 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 secu-
rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due and
the rights to reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(d) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from and completely
disestablish the employee bargaining committee, or any successor
thereof, as the representative of any of the Respondent's employees
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1129
for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment.
(e) Post at its plant in New York City copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure
that notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has,
taken to comply herewith.
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."
APPENDIX
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 our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership by our employees in
Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Feder-
ation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization, by discriminatorily discharging any employee, or
refusing to reinstate him, or in any other manner discriminating
against him in regard to his hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment, except as authorized by Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their membership
in, interest in, or activities on behalf of the above, or any other
labor organization , in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint, or coercion.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a loss of their jobs
or other reprisals if they join, become interested in, or engage in
activities on behalf of the above, or any other labor organization,
or refuse to engage in union or other concerted activity initiated
or supported by us.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employees to influence
them to engage in union or other concerted activity initiated or
supported by us.
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT dominate, interfere with, or furnish financial or
other support to the formation of any labor organization of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT dominate, interfere with, or furnish financial or
other support to the administration of the employee bargaining
committee, or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize the employee bargaining committee, or
any successor thereto, as the representative of any of our em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
working conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the April 22, 1959, agreement, or
any contracts or agreements, supplements thereto, or modifica-
tions thereof, or any superseding contracts, with the said employee
bargaining committee. We recognize, however, that we are not
required to vary the wages, rates of pay, or other working condi-
tions embodied in the April 22, 1959, agreement, or heretofore
established.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist Architectural and Engineer-
ing Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL withdraw all recognition from and completely dises-
tablish the employee bargaining committee and refrain from
recognizing it, or any successor thereto, as the representative of
any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concern-
ing grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
working conditions of employment.
WE WILL offer Alvin Zeleznick and Richard Campagnola
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against
them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from
,becoming or remaining, members of the Architectural and Engineer-
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1131
ing Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , except as provided under
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act , modified by the Labor -Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Employer.
Dated---- ------------ By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These cases, Cases Nos. 2-CA-6493 and 2-CA-6628, brought under Section
10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein
called the Act, on charges filed by Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66,
American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, on April 18 and 21, 1959,
respectively, were heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner in New York,
New York, on July 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13, 1958, on consolidated complaints of the
General Counsel, and denials of Respondent Firedoor Corporation of America,
herein called the Respondent.
The complaint in Case No. 2-CA-6493 alleges that Respondent engaged in, and
continues to engage in, various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and discriminatorily discharged employees
Richard Campagnola and Alvin Zeleznick in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act. The complaint in Case No. 2-CA-6628 alleges that Respondent engaged
in, and continues to engage in, other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; and initiated, sponsored, and promoted the
formation of a labor organization, and rendered, and continues to render, unlawful
assistance and support, including financial assistance and support, to this labor
organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. Respondent in an answer
to the complaint in Case No. 2-CA-6493 denies the commission of the unfair labor
practices alleged therein. While it failed to answer the allegations of the complaint
in Case No. 2-CA-6628, its defense at the hearing was a denial of the unfair labor
practices alleged therein.
The General Counsel and Respondent were represented at the hearing, and all
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence,
and to file briefs. In view of the lateness of the hour when the hearing was closed,
and the inability of chief counsel for Respondent to be present the following day
because of an emergency labor situation, the Trial Examiner asked for briefs in lieu
of summations or closing arguments. The Respondent filed a brief with the Trial
Examiner after the close of the hearing. General Counsel did not file a brief.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges and the Respondent admits that Respondent is a New York
corporation with its principal office and place of business in New York City, where
it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of hollow steel metal doors
and frames and related products, and which shipped during the period April 1, 1958,
to March 30, 1959, products with a value in excess of $1,000,000 from said place
of business directly in interstate commerce to customers at points located in States
other than, and outside of, the State of New York. I find that Respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
assertion of jurisdiction is warranted.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Architectural and Engineering Guild , Local 66, American Federation of Technical
Engineers , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The issues in this case are whether Respondent's officials in an effort to restrain
and interfere with Respondent's technical employees in their voluntary actions to
join the Union or retain membership therein, and to select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative, and to coerce them to group together as a labor
organization for the purpose of bargaining directly with Respondent, did, during
the period from November 1958, up to and including April 1959, engage in the
following conduct:
(1) Interrogate and threaten employees and make them promises of benefit in
meetings and privately.
(2) Discriminatorily discharge employees Alvin Zeleznick and Richard Campa-
gnola.
(3) When the Union's petition for an election was on file with the Board, cause
the technical employees to hold meetings on Respondent's time and facilities to
decide to disavow the Union and bargain collectively as a group directly with
Respondent.
(4) When a Board-directed election was pending, cause the technical employees
on Respondent's time and facilities to disavow the Union and prepare proposals
regarding wages, hours, and working conditions, and as a labor organization to
collectively bargain with Respondent on these proposals and counterproposals of
Respondent, and reach an agreement with Respondent on a collective-bargaining
contract to be executed and effective if the Union lost the election.
,B. General background
Respondent employs approximately 100 employees in its production and main-
tenance department . For some period of time it has had a collective -bargaining
contract with a district council for the New York City area of United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, in regard to these employees. The
issues in this proceeding neither relate in any manner to these employees, nor to
the labor organization which represents them . Respondent also employs a tech-
nical staff consisting of employees doing takeoff, listing, and drafting work.' They
numbered approximately 13 during the major part of the times material to this
proceeding . The issues in this proceeding directly relate to these technical employees,
hereinafter called employees .2 The employees doing takoff work were supervised
directly by Neville Schneider and the employees doing drafting work and listing
work were supervised directly by Barry Mirsky. The employees in both of these
groups, as well as the other employees of Respondent were under the general
supervision of Bernard A. Schecter , Respondent's executive vice president, and J.
Bernard Sussman , its president.
Respondent first began operations in March 1957 . It and Spartan Steel Prod-
ucts, herein called Spartan Steel , were the successors to World Steel Products , herein
called World Steel . Sussman was the president of the latter company from 1916
until it ended operations in March 1957 . While the Union was the collective-
bargaining representative of the technical employees of World Steel as -a result of
an election held a year or so prior to March 1957 , it never succeeded in executing
a collective -bargaining contract with it.
'Takeoff consists of taking the pertinent construction details off the architect's specifi-
cations, or sometimes going to the jobsite to ascertain the quantity or quality of a certain
product or material, and making a list of the products or materials specified Respond-
ent's officials then price the items. These prices are then incorporated in a bid Listing
consists of determining the size, quantity, and quality of a door or doorframe from the
draftsman's details, and laying it out in a flat pattern with all its necessary dimensions
and cutouts for use in its manufacture.
'The employees involved were Albert Romano, Richard Campagnola, Alvin Zeleznick,
Robert Higgins, Charles Crapanzano, Daniel Gazzola, Frank Leanza, Bruno Oliveto,
Lawrence Immerman , Raymond Orsi, Angel Garbizu, Joseph Scialabba, and Alexander
Santiago. As discussed infra, prior to April 17, 1959, Campagnola and Zeleznick were
discharged, and Romano, Orsi, and Garbizu resigned. So these five were not part of the
group that bargained with Respondent on April 21 and 22, 1959. Woluska was also
employed as a draftsman during the conduct under scrutiny. However, he would have
nothing to do with the employees' concerted activity or Respondent's conduct In con-
nection therewith. The remaining eight employees are those referred to in the caption as
parties in interest and as the Employee Bargaining Committee.
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1133
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion and domination of, interference with, and
assistance to, a labor organization
1. Undisputed facts
A number of material and relevant events in evidence through the testimony of
General Counsel's witnesses are either undisputed or admitted by Respondent.
These events are set out in the following paragraphs.
In October 1958, Mirsky, in charge of drafting and listing work, asked Higgins
if he had received any correspondence from the Union with respect to his joining it.3
On or about November 24, 1958, the Union filed a petition with the Board
asking for an election in a unit including listers, takeoff men, and draftsmen. On
the same date, the Union sent a letter to Respondent in which it stated that it
represented a majority of the employees, and notified Respondent that it was
requesting the Board for an election.
On December 10, 1958, Mirsky asked Zeleznick, Campagnola, Higgins, Leanza,
Santiago, and one or two others if they were members of the Union. They denied
that they were. The next day, Mirsky asked Higgins, Zeleznick, Campagnola,
Gazzola, Leanza, and Santiago to sign a petition addressed to the Board containing
the statements that they had not been contacted by the Union and thereby revoked
all actions taken by the Union on their behalf. All but Santiago refused to sign
the petition.
On December 12, 1958, Schecter addressed a meeting of the employees in the
drafting room about their concerted activity. He had a letter dated December 11,
1958, trom the Union in which the latter accused Respondent of coercing its em-
ployees to withdraw from the Union. The employees addressed were listers
Crapanzano, Santiago, Higgins, Scialabba, Zeleznick, Campagnola, and Romano;
draftsmen Orsi, Garbizu, Oliveto, Gazzola, and Leanza; and takeoff man Immerman.
Following the meeting, the employees met to decide whether they wished to have
the Union represent them. They voted against making such a decision at that time,
and agreed to wait until a Board election to determine whether they wished to be
represented by the Union.
On January 5, 1959, Sussman, Respondent's president, addressed the employees
in the drafting room, with respect to concerted activity. Following this meeting,
the employees met to decide whether or not to deal directly with Respondent and
abandon the Union. They again decided not to do so, and to wait until a Board
election to determine whether they wished the Union to represent them. On or
about January 19, 1959, Mirsky appeared in the drafting room with a copy of the
collective-bargaining contract between Pioneer Fire Proof Door Corporation and
the Union, passed it around among the employees for their scrutiny, and stated
that Sussman said they could have anything that was in the contract if they dealt
directly with Respondent and not through the Union.
On February 12, 1959, a hearing was held in the Board's Regional Office in
New York City on the Union's petition for an election. On April 6, 1959, the
Regional Director directed an election to be held on April 23, 1959. In the mean-
time, specifically on March 13, 1959, employees Zeleznick and Campagnola were
discharged.
On April 17, 1959, Schecter again held a meeting of the employees and spoke to
them regarding their concerted activity. Following this meeting, the employees met
by themselves and decided to prepare a list of collective-bargaining proposals and
submit them to Respondent. The latter was so notified. On April 21, the employees
notified Respondent that they were ready to draw up the proposals and requested
time to do so. The request was granted. The proposals were prepared and sub-
mitted to Respondent on April 21, 1959. Schecter acknowledged them the same
date. The next morning he indicated to the employees which of the proposals
Respondent would accept, and submitted counterproposals for those it would not
accept. And on that date an agreement was reached by the employees and
Respondent after negotiation. The agreement was to be placed in final form and
executed on April 24, and to be effective on April 27, if the Union lost the election
on April 23.
The election was held on April 23, 1959. Eight employees voted. Four voted
for representation by the Union and four against such representation. On May 2,
3 Active interest in the Union began during the first week in October 1958, when em-
ployees Romano and Campagnola distributed union cards which they had received from a
member of the Union's executive board. This interest increased during the remainder of
October and through November as cards were signed and the employees had personal
contact with officials of the Union.
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1959, the Board certified that a majority of ballots had not been cast for the Union,
and that the Union was not the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees.
The Union filed objections to the conduct of the election. A disposition of the
objections had not been made at the time of the hearing.
The agreement was not executed. There is no evidence that any further action
in regard to it was taken either by the Respondent or by the Employee Bargaining
Committee.
2. Facts in controversy
While the Respondent admits or leaves undisputed the events set out above, it
contends that they were not unlawful as General Counsel contends, but occasions
for innocent and uncoercive inquiries, and during which it stated, as an employer,
its position with respect to the union activity and membership, entirely free of
interference with the employees' rights, and any coercive or restraining aspects.
It also contends that another purpose was to make known to its employees their
rights to refrain from, or resist, if they so desired, the organizational and other
union activity of the Union, and to group together voluntarily to engage in collective
bargaining with Respondent without the assistance, aid, or representation by Re-
spondent. What transpired during the meetings Respondent's representatives had
with the employees is stated in the following paragraphs, excluding what the Trial
Examiner has already found to be admitted or undisputed by Respondent.
a. The December 10 and 11, 1958, inquiries about union activity
Supervisor ,Mirsky's explanation of his inquiries on December 10, 1958, regarding
union membership and his request on the following day that the employees sign
a petition disavowing support of the Union, was that Respondent was interested in
finding out if the Union represented a majority of the employees following its
notice to Respondent of November 24 of a majority representative status, and that
when the employees denied they were union members or were supporting it, the
petition was prepared by President Sussman and Vice President Schecter with the
assistance of Respondent's Attorney Raphael, and that he asked the employees to
sign it so that Respondent could forward the employees' disavowal of the Union to
the Board.
As stated supra, Respondent was on notice by December 10 that the Union had
filed the petition for an election. It knew, therefore, that it had no duty to bargain
until the representation proceeding had been concluded. The Respondent gave no
explanation as to how the Board could have been expected to give any value to an
employee petition disavowing union membership or support, the form of which
was prepared by the Employer, and presented by it to the employees for signature
following its interrogation of them as to their union membership and activity.
b. The December 12, 1958, meeting
The December 12 meeting called by Schecter began between 9:30 and 10 a.m.
Supervisor Mirsky was also present. The employees were paid for the time taken
up by the meeting, and for the meetings and conferences with Respondent that
followed.
Schecter had in his hand the letter from the Union accusing Respondent of forcing
the employees to resign from the Union. He was angry and talked in a loud voice.
He said he was very shocked at the attitude of the employees, particularly those who
had come from World Steel. To him, the signing of the petition by the employees
would have been a vote of confidence in Respondent. He also said that he could
not understand why the employees would want a union, pointing out that all the
promises made to the employees who had transferred from World Steel had been
kept .4 He announced that sick leave, wage increases for apprentices, and the deci-
sion to permit the employees to work two Saturdays prior to Christmas Day in order
to have off the Fridays following Christmas and New Year's would be canceled.5
Schecter then said that he would not wait until the Board had disposed of the Union's
petition for an election, but wanted a decision right atvay as to whether the employees
desired the Union to represent them.
As soon as Schecter and Mirsky departed, the employees held the meeting at
which they decided to delay making the determination whether or not they desired
4 Zeleznick, Campagnola, Higgins, and Woluska were formerly employed by World Steel.
They were offered a $10 increase in wages and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Hospitalization
as Inducement to work for Respondent.
51-le was asked if apprentices were to receive hospitalization.
However, he did not
commit himself one way or the other. He said the matter would be considered.
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1135,
the Union to represent them until a Board election was held pursuant to the Union's
petition . They appointed a committee consisting of Romano , Campagnola , Higgins,
and Zeleznick to inform Schecter of this decision , and also to find out definitely
if the sick leave, leave on Fridays after Christmas and New Year's and apprentice
wage increases were to be canceled , and whether the apprentices were to receive
hospitalization . The committee met Schecter in Mirsky 's office. In response to a
question , Schecter said that the employees misunderstood his statements in the drafting
room, that the leave and apprentice programs would remain , and all employees not
receiving hospitalization would receive it as soon as possible . However, he informed
them that the Friday leave had to be canceled . His reason was that Respondent was
fearful the Union would construe it as the giving of benefits to discourage union
membership . The committee then informed him that the employees decided to.
delay deciding whether or not they wished to have the Union represent them until
the Board election . Schecter replied in an angry voice that he would not accept
such a decision , that he had to have an answer. During the first few minutes of
lunchtime , the employees again decided to wait until the Board election to determine.
whether they wanted the Union . Higgins so informed Schecter after lunch. Schecter
replied to Higgins that he at least knew where he stood. He also said that he was.
disappointed in the men for not letting him know that they had grievances which
caused them to go to the Union , and that he felt he had failed them as an employer
because they had to seek the help of the Union . He attributed Respondent 's delay
in giving wage increases to the slowness of payments owed to Respondent for work
carried over from World Steels
c. The January 5, 1959, meeting
All the employees were present at the January 5, 1959, meeting called and,
addressed by President Sussman . Vice President Schecter and Supervisors Mirsky.
and Schneider were also present. Sussman called the meeting for 12:30 p.m.,
changing the beginning of the lunch period to 12:45 p.m. He stated at the outset
that the meeting was not a captive meeting and would be over in 15 minutes. Then•
he expressed disappointment with the employees for seeking representation by the
Union, particularly the former employees of World Steel who he claimed had.
received all they had been promised as inducement to accept employment with
Respondent . He claimed a desire for harmony between Respondent and the
employees , and then stated that he did not wish to have a third party between
himself and the employees . According to him, his door was always open to them
individually or collectively to see him about grievances. He then stated that the
employees could appoint a committee which could come to him with a list of-
proposals and try to work out something with him. He assured the employees
that they did not have to fear being laid off as he would find something for them
to do. He would transfer them from and to drafting , listing, or takeoff work if
work became slack in any one of these activities ? Sussman then left.
Mirsky then told the employees that if they made up a list of grievances and
presented them to Sussman they had nothing to lose. He said that they should,
try bargaining with Sussman as a unit within the Company, and if they could not
get any place they could always go back to the Union . Higgins disagreed with
him, telling him that the Union would have nothing to do with them if they bar-
gained directly with Respondent , especially after it failed to obtain a contract with
World Steel . Mirsky contended that the Union would take them back anytime.
U These evidentiary findings are premised on the testimony of Higgins, Romano,
Campagnola , and Zeleznick , as well as on the admissions of Schecter . Schecter 's testi-
mony for the most part corroborates the testimony of Higgins , Romano, Campagnola,
and Zeleznick . I have credited Higgins' testimony of what transpired during the meeting
he and the other three employee representatives had with Schecter to apprise him of
their decision not to select or reject the Union until the Board election , and a similar
meeting Higgins alone had with Schecter to inform him that on reconsideration the,
employees reached the same decision . There is no rebuttal of this testimony with the
exception of the part dealing with increases for apprentices . Schecter testified that in
the meeting with the four representatives he stated he was canceling the wage increases
to apprentices as well as the leave on the two Fridays . According to Higgins and the
other three , he stated that he was canceling only the leave on Fridays I credit Higgins'
testimony corroborated by that of Campagnola, Romano , and Zeleznick
v Campagnola stated on cross -examination by Respondent's counsel that Sussman said
that increases would be held up lest the Union might misconstrue the giving of them as
promises of benefit
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Mirsky stopped talking, the men went to lunch. After lunch, the com-
mittee of four-Higgins, Zeleznick, Campagnola, and Romano-asked Mirsky for
permission to draw up a list of proposals to present to Sussman. Mirsky granted
the request. A list of proposals was prepared by all the employees. All of them
participated in the preparation. A vote was then taken to decide whether the list
would be presented to Sussman. It was a tie. It was "quitting" time, so the
employees decided to consider the matter again the next morning. Upon receiving
permission, they considered the matter again on the following morning. A vote
was then taken. They decided they would not present the proposals to Sussman.
Higgins so informed Mirsky in his office, and also told him the employees would
wait until the Board election to decide whether or not they wanted the Union to
represent them. He asked Mirsky to convey this information to Sussman. A few
minutes later Mirsky appeared in the drafting room and said, "All right gentlemen
you have had it now."
The consideration of Sussman's proposal on January 5 consumed 4 hours of
working time, and the same consideration on January 6 consumed 11h hours of
working time. No employees worked during this consideration. They were paid
for this time.8
d. The April 17, 1959, meeting
The address by Schecter to the employees on April 17, 1959, was during working
time in the drafting room. Eight employees were present. They were Santiago,
Immerman, Higgins, Oliveto, Crapanzano, Scialabba, Gazzola, and Leanza.9
Schecter said it would be their last chance for any kind of private negotiations be-
cause the election was the following week, and that Respondent would be glad
to negotiate privately if the employees desired it that way. He suggested that the
employees draw up a list of "grievances" and work them out with Sussman within
the Company. He said that although 12 months elapsed from the time World
Steel employees initiated action for representation by the Union until the closing
down of World Steel, the Union had not succeeded in obtaining a contract with
that Company. He then remarked that the financial condition of Respondent at
the time was bad, and that blood could not be squeezed out of a stone. He there-
upon asked for answer to the question whether the employees would or would not
negotiate privately with Respondent.
As stated supra, the employees told Schecter they would think the matter over,
which they did, and decided to draft a list of proposals regarding wages, hours,
and other working conditions and present them to Respondent. Schecter was so
notified the afternoon of April 17 by either Higgins or Leanza.
As also stated supra, it was undisputed that on April 21, 1959, the proposals
were prepared by the employees and submitted that date to Respondent, and that
the employees 10 negotiated with Schecter on these proposals and counterproposals
of Schecter, and reached an agreement on April 22. Vice President Schecter stated
to the employees that it would be executed on April 24 and effective on April 27
if the Union lost the election. The agreement provided nothing that was not already
in effect, except a more definite time for the receipt of hospitalization by those not
then receiving it, and the protection afforded by having wages, hours, and working
conditions spelled out in a contract. Respondent, on December 12, 1958, had
stated that the apprentice employees would receive hospitalization as soon as it
could be worked out.
As already stated, the election ended in a tie, thereby making the Union the
loser. The agreement was never executed or made effective. The employees, as
8 The findings of what took place at the January 5 meeting, of what action the em-
ployees took following the meeting, and of the disclosure to Mirsky and Sussman of the
.employees' decisions are premised on the testimony of General Counsel's witnesses
Higgins, Campagnola, Zeleznick, and Romano. While the testimony of Respondent's wit-
nesses Mirsky and Sussman of these incidents, if credited, would show a softer impact of
their statements and other conduct on the employees, it is, nevertheless, corroborative of
the testimony of Gencial Counsel' s witnesses
9 As previously stated between February and April 17, 1959, Zeleznick and Campagnola
were discharged, and Romano, Orsi, and Garbizu resigned . Woluska continued to refuse
to participate in the employees' concerted activity or Respondent' s conduct in connection
with it.
11 The eight employees who decided to bargain and thereafter bargained, with Respondent
are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Employee Bargaining Committee. This
Committee had no formal organization , rules, bylaws, constitution, officers, or other repre-
pentatives, or other indicia of an independent labor organization.
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1137
on past similar occasions, were paid for the time consumed by the meetings with
Schecter as well as the time taken up by the private meetings at which they decided
to bargain with Respondent, drafted the contract proposals, and considered the
counterproposals of Respondent.
3. Other evidence of General Counsel of interference, restraint and coercion
Garbizu and Orsi, two former employees of Respondent, and Immerman, an
employee of Respondent, also testified for the General Counsel.
The Trial Examiner credits Garbizu's and Orsi's testimony that they began
employment with Respondent as trainees at $45 per week in August 1958, with a
promise of a $5 increase every quarter for the first year, that they received the first
quarterly increase in November 1958 but not a second quarterly increase due in
February 1959, and that Schecter told both of them in separate conversations
wherein they inquired about the increases due them, that they could not be given
because the other employees wanted to get into the Union. I also credit Orsi's
testimony that Mirsky said the same thing in February when he asked him about
the increase, and that Schecter also said to him in February that if he would get the
employees to drop out of the Union the trainees would receive their increases."
I also credit Immerman's testimony that he was first employed by Respondent in
September 1958, that he received a starting salary of $50 per week with a promise
of a $5 increase quarterly for the first year.12 I also credit his testimony that when
he had a conversation with Schecter in February 1959 about the second increase
which was due the following March, the latter said he would not receive it because
of the Union, and that he also asked Schneider in February about the increase and
was given the same answer that Schecter gave him. There is also Campagnola's
testimony, which I credit, that in September 1958 he asked Schecter for the reason
why he did not receive all of the increase which he had been promised. Sussman
informed him that there would be no increases until the end of the fiscal year.
According to Sussman, this would be the end of February 1959. It is undisputed,
and I so find, that Respondent had notice on or about January 27, 1959, that the
Union would not object to the increases which Schecter in February 1959 told
Immerman, Garbizu, and Orsi Respondent could not pay because the Union would
object to them as being promises of benefit to discourage union membership and
representation.13
D. The discharges
General Counsel contends that Zeleznick and Campagnola were discharged on or
about March 13, 1958, by Respondent as part of a plan to defeat both the Union's
organizational activity and its selection by the employees as their collective bargaining
representative. Respondent, on the other hand, admits that it discharged both of
these employees, but contends that they were discharged for economic reasons.
1. The discharge of Zeleznick
Alvin Zeleznick worked at World Steel from October 1950 through March 1957
with the exception of 2 years (1953-54) in the Army, as takeoff man and lister. He
also did some drafting. He was first employed by Respondent in March 1957 when
World Products ceased operations. Sussman asked him to work for it He offered
him a $10 raise, Blue Cross and Blue Shield hospitalization, and recognition of time
employed by World Steel in determining vacation pay for 1957. Sussman also told
n Garbizu resigned in February 1959 and Orsi resigned on March 13, 1959 Garbizu
found a job a week after he resigned with Aetna Steel Corporation at $70 per week He
was let go at the end of the first week. The new employer gave as a reason the require-
ments of an agreement to which it was a party The Friday he was terminated from his
new job, Sussman attempted to locate him to offer to take him back at increased wages
He returned to Respondent the following Monday and was offered $60 per week by
Sussman. He asked for $70. Sussman said lie would give it to him in the future He
worked 1 day at the $60 rate and left
12According to Sussman, the trainee status lasted for a year, that at the end of the
year the trainee's ability and usefulness to Respondent could be evaluated, and his income
from then on depended on the going rate for the particular classification and the skill,
capacity, and qualifications of the employee
ii General Counsel alleged in his complaint in Case No 2-CA-6493 that in connection
with its campaign to defeat the Union, Respondent withheld a Christmas bonus from the
employees At the hearing counsel for General Counsel conceded that the employees were
not entitled to a Christmas bonus.
560940-61-vol. 127--73
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him that if things worked out all right he might eventually rise to the type of position
held by William Krantz who was chief engineer of World Steel. There was no
break between the employment by World Steel and by Respondent. He received
an increase immediately, which made his salary $110 per week. It was raised to
$120 per week in September 1957. In October 1958, he received a $5 increase making
it $125 per week. This was the highest salary paid to a takeoff, listing, or drafting
employee.
A few days after November 24, 1958, Mirsky called Zeleznick into his office and
referred him to the Union's letter of that date informing Respondent that it repre-
sented a majority of the employees and that it was filing a petition for an election,
and asked him if he knew anything about it. Zeleznick replied that he had had no
communication with the Union since the time he worked for World Steel.14 Later
in the same day, Mirsky asked Zeleznick if he had any knowledge of the employees
who may have had something to do with the organizational activity referred to in
the letter. As previously stated, on or about December 10, 1958, Mirsky asked
Zeleznick if he was a member of the Union, and on or about December 11, 1958,
asked him to sign the petitions to the Board stating that the employees had not been
contacted by the Union, and that they revoked all action taken by it. In answer
to the December 10 inquiry, Zeleznick denied he was a member of the Union. In
answer to the December 11 request, Zeleznick said he would not sign, and remarked
at the time that he would have to find out what the union activity was about. Mirsky
replied that he could not understand why he did not sign the petition as all the
promises Sussman made to him had been kept. Zeleznick again stated he would not
sign, and also said he would give credit to the other men who would not sign. Mirsky
replied that he would be sorry.
After Sussman suggested in the course of his January 5, 1959, talk to the em-
ployees that they form a group and bargain collectively with Respondent, Zeleznick
asked Sussman if it were not true that company union contracts were not worth
the paper they were written on. Sussman agreed, saying that their agreement would'
be a gentlemen's agreement.15 On a number of occasions during working hours in
the period between December 11, 1958, and March 13, 1959, when Schecter would
meet Zeleznick in the hall or other places, he would greet him with the words, "Hello,
shop steward"; "How is the ringleader?"; or "What is new with the Union?" This
would happen on an average of twice a week. A few days after Chirstmas, Schecter
said to Zeleznick that some of the men formerly employed by World Steel Products,
and working for Spartan Steel Products, had asked him at their Christmas party
about the possibility of coining to work for Respondent. He further said to Zeleznick
that lie did not think it right to hire these men, and then later have to lay off men
who had come to Respondent directly from World Steel.is
At the end of January 1959, Sussman called Zeleznick into his office. He asked
Zeleznick to recall that when he came out of the Army in 1954, he gave him a job,
that he took him back in World Steel. He also asked him to recall that when World
Steel became the Respondent Firedoor and Spartan Steel, he gave him a job with
Respondent, promised him a $10 raise, and other raises, Blue Cross and Blue Shield
hospitalization, and seniority, and that he kept all his promises. He then said that
if Zeleznick wished to do so, he could go out into the drafting room and talk the
men out of joining the Union. He remarked that he had nothing against Raimst, the
business representative of the Union, and inquired as to the amount of union dues.
When Zeleznick replied that they were about $7 a month, he said that he would like
to have a business that received $7 a month from each of thousands of men. He
also directed Zeleznick's attention to Respondent's paying for hospitalization of the
former employees of World Steel which ran to $100 per month. Sussman then
charged that he, Zeleznick, had promised he would not join the Union when he was
first employed by Respondent. Zeleznick denied he made such a promise. Sussman
ended the conversation by saying that Zeleznick's wife appeared to be intelligent,
and that he should go home and discuss the matter with her carefully.17
14 He did not join the Union until after his conversation with Sussman in February
1959 Apparently he was not one of the leaders of the organizational campaign beginning
in October 1958. He had been a member of the Union while at World Steel, but let his
membership lapse
za Sussman could not recall this colloquy with Zeleznick , but Orsi , General Counsel's
witness, who was one of the employees present, testified that Zeleznick did direct this
Inquiry to Sussman.
's Schecter agreed that he talked with Zeleznick many times, but could not recall that
he made these statements. I credit Zeleznick 's testimony.
11 Sussman admitted the January conversation. He agreed he cited benefits, and said
he felt the employees should come to him about complaints . He also said he made it
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1139
Sussman again called Zeleznick into his office about the end of February 1959.
He asked him again to recall his giving him a job, the $10 raise, Blue Cross and Blue
Shield hospitalization, the other increases, and said again that his door was always
open if he was not satisfied. He then said that Zelezmck, as "senior man," could
go out and talk the men out of joining the Union. Zeleznick replied that he could
not talk the men out of joining the Union, that they had started without him and
would continue on their own in spite of what he had to say. Again Sussman asked
Zeleznick to talk the matter over with his wife.18 Following the February conversa-
tion with Sussman, Zeleznick did discuss the matter with his wife and they decided
he should join the Union. He then signed -a union card. Romano, the contact man
with the Union, gave it to him around the beginning of February 1959.
On March 13, 1959, between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m., Sussman called him into his
office. He closed the door and said: "Al, I have some bad news for you. Work
is slow and we have to lay you off." Zeleznick asked, "What happened to the
seniority7" Sussman replied, "Why Al, you know we have no seniority here."
Zelezmck then said, "I can't argue with you. It is your business," and walked out.
He picked up his belongings and left.
The evening Zeleznick was laid off, he talked to Mirsky by telephone. He called
Mirsky. He apologized for not saying goodby before he left, and asked him if
there was anything he could do to assist him in getting his job back. Mirsky answered
that he did not know what he could do. He then prefaced his further remarks with
the statement that he would not repeat what he was about to say, and thereupon
said that the union situation had gotten out of hand, that there was nothing he could
do to change the minds of Sussman and Schecter about the layoffs, that things had
just changed too fast. Zeleznick also asked Mirsky to recommend him to employers
to whom he had given his name as a reference. Mirsky said he would do so.
Zeleznick called Mirsky 2 weeks later. He asked him if he had received any requests
for references from employers. Mirsky said he had received one request and that
he had given the reference. He then said he might be able to talk the Respondent
into taking him, Zeleznick, back, if he denounced the Union, remarking that he would
deny he made such a statement.19
2. Richard Campagnola
Campagnola, like Zeleznick, was a transferee from World Steel. His employment
by Respondent began with the beginning of its operations in March 1957. He did
takeoff work, listing, and some drafting?a At the beginning of his employment, he
received a $10 increase in wages over what he received at World Steel and hos-
pitalization which he did not have at World Steel. He also received another $10
clear that the men had a right to join the Union. He denied he said to Zeleznick that he
should not join a union. He admitted the $7 dues reference. He recalled a reference to
Zeleznick's wife, but said that it was Zeleznick who made it According to him, Zelezmck
said he would talk to her. I credit Zeleznick. If Sussman's version were credited, this
meeting would have no purpose.
1s Sussman could not recall this conversation I credit Zeleznick. As was the case in
January, Sussman's purpose was to elicit Zeleznick's suppoit in his attempts to defeat
the Union
15 Mirsky testified that he talked with Zeleznick once on the telephone He said that to
his knowledge lie did not state that he might be able to talk Respondent into taking him
back if he denounced the Union According to Mirsky, the conversation was a few days
after Zeleznick's discharge. He recalled Zeleznick apologizing for not saying goodbye
and asking if there was anything he, Mirsky, could do to get him reinstated, and his
reply that lie would see what lie could do He did not recall Zeleznick asking him if lie
gave the recommendations He said that in the "original conversation," Zeleznick asked
him if he would give him a good recommendation if anyone called Mirsky testified that
lie gave him one I credit Zeleznick. Mirsky's reference to the "original conversation"
indicates there was more than one conversation The request in the first conversation
that Mirsky recommend him to employers whom he would solicit for employment and
who were interested enough to contact Mirsky, after he was given as a reference, by
Zeleznick, and a check 2 weeks later by Zeleznick to see whether there had been requests
for a recommendation, appear to be steps a person out of employment, like Zeleznick,
would logically and normally take. Mirsky admitted that he and his wife knew Zeleznick
and his wife socially.
"'At World Steel, where he was employed from August 1952 to March 1957, lie also did
listing, takeoff, and drafting work Respondent, through Schecter, offered him the in-
ducement of a $10 increase in wages, and hospitalization, to accept employment with
Respondent
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
raise in September 1958, making his wages the second highest wages paid to takeoff,
listing, or drafting employees. Zeleznick's were the highest.
Campagnola did takeoff work from March 1957 to September 1958, except when
he was temporarily assigned to listing work to help handle a heavy schedule of such
work. In September 1958, Sussman assigned him permanently to listing. He told
him that there were not enough listers to handle the work. He was never reassigned
to takeoff work. Immerman and Scialabba were doing takeoff work when Campa-
gnola was discharged. Immerman was assigned to takeoff work in August or Sep-
tember 1958. At Schecter's request, Campagnola broke him in on this type of
work. Scialabba was placed on takeoff work about 3 weeks before March 13, 1959.
He had been doing listing since the beginning of his employment, 2 years before.
Scialabba sought help from Campagnola with respect to the takeoff work during
these 3 weeks. During his assignment to listing, Campagnola would occasionally
handle difficult takeoff assignments at Schecter's request. He was commended
by his supervisor on many occasions for the neatness of his work, his handling of
it, and because he made but few errors or mistakes.
In the last week of October 1958, Campagnola along with Romano met with
Ernie Rhymer of the executive board of the Union. The following day he and
Romano distributed authorization cards which they had received from Rhymer.
Following a meeting at the hall of the Union arranged by Romano most of the men
signed the authorization cards and Romano and Campagnola collected the cards.
As previously stated, Campagnola was one of the employees asked by Mirsky on
December 10, 1958, if he was a member of the Union, and one of the employees
asked by Mirsky on December 11, 1958, to sign the petition to the Board containing
the statements that they had not been contacted by the Union and thereby revoked
all actions taken by the Union on their behalf.
On March 13, 1959, about 3:45 p.m., Mirsky asked Campagnola to go into
Sussman's office. Sussman spoke to him there. He said he had some bad news
for him. He then told Campagnola he was laid off because of lack of work in the
listing department. Campagnola said he was surprised because he was a takeoff
man and was helping out in the listing department. Sussman replied that he was
-sorry but could do nothing about it. Before leaving Respondent's plant on March
13, following notice of his discharge, Campagnola had a conversation with Mirsky.
He referred Mirsky to a conversation he had with him about the middle of January
1959, in which he, Campagnola, mentioned to him that he was getting married
and asked him if his job was secure, and Mirsky replied that it was. Mirsky's
answer to Campagnola's reference to the conversation of January was "You know
the reason why I can't help you."
Respondent has not reinstated or offered to reinstate these employees.
3. Respondent's defense that the discharges were for economic reasons
Respondent, through its witness Sussman, placed in evidence figures to show
that sales for the months of October 1958 through February 1959 were, in dollars,
$254,000; $139,000; $50,000; $96,000; and $58,000. Sussman did not bring any
figures to the hearing room to show a comparison between these figures and those
for the comparable period of October 1957 through February 1958, or any evidence
showing the seasonal effect on Respondent's sales, or any sales figures for the
period March to October in the years of 1957 and 1958.
Sussman testified that more employees were not laid off because Romano,
Garbizu, and Orsi resigned between February and April 1959. He further testified
that they as well as Campagnola and Zeleznick were not replaced.21 He did admit
that Zeleznick and Campagnola were the only two employees discharged for eco-
nomic reasons during the time Respondent had been in operation As previously
stated, Sussman denied he said in the January 5 meeting that he would not lay
anyone off. He testified that he said he would keep the employees on to the extent
he could do so economically.
Schecter testified that he discussed the decline in business with Sussman prior
to March 13, 1959, and had a part in the decision to lay off Zeleznick and Cam-
pagnola. Both Sussman and Schecter furnished as an explanation for the discharges
that Zeleznick and Campagnola were the two highest paid employees, and were
chosen since their selection meant a greater saving than would be the case if other
employees were selected.
Sussman defended his offer to Garhizu in February 1959 to increase his wages if
he returned to work at Respondent's plant as well as his willingness to seek him out
"Sussman also testified that six others resigned during the period from J -ne 1957 up
to and including October 1958. According to Sussman, they were not replace'
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1141
to learn whether he would return at increased wages, on the ground that Respondent
had an investment in a trainee, such as he, who had worked at its plant as long as
he had, which was 7 or 8 months. On the other hand, Sussman, Schecter, and
Mirsky deprecated the value of the investment Respondent had in Zeleznick and
Campagnola, in spite of their long service and acknowledged skill.
E. Concluding findings
Premised on the above findings, I make the following concluding findings:
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
I have found that in November and December 1958, Respondent asked employees
about their union membership, and prepared a petition addressed to the Board
which the employees were asked to sign, containing the statements that the Union
did not have the employees' support and that they revoked any representations
made on their behalf by the Union. I have also found that Respondent's Vice
President Schecter held an employee meeting on December 12, 1958, which he
addressed in an angry voice, as he held in his hand a letter from the Union accusing
Respondent of coercing employees to withdraw their support of the Union, and told
the assembled employees that the signing of the petition would have been a vote
of confidence in the Respondent, that the benefits of sick leave, Friday holidays after
Christmas and New Year, and apprentice wage increases were canceled, and that
they had to decide then and there whether they wished the Union to represent them
for collective-bargaining purposes, even though the Union's petition for an election
was pending before the Board. I find this conduct to constitute interrogation,
threats, and other economic pressure, violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.22
I cannot accept the Respondent's defense that the inquiries on December 10 were
innocent and uncoercive, and were intended only to find out whether the Union
represented the employees as it stated to Respondent in its letter of November 24,
1958, and that solicitation on December 11 of signatures to its petition was in
order to inform the Board of evidence of a misrepresentation of the Union contained
in its petition for an election. The Union did not demand or request recognition
in its letter of November 24, 1958, but only informed Respondent that it represented
a majority and was requesting the Board for an election. Moreover, Respondent
knew that the Union filed the petition. Respondent knew, therefore, that since the
representation matter would be resolved by the Board's processes pursuant to the
Act, it had no duty to bargain until the Board, if at all, certified the Union as col-
lective-bargaining representative. Furthermore, the statement of Schecter in the
December 12 meeting that the signing of the petition would have been a vote of
confidence in the Respondent, shows clearly it was a coercive effort on its part
to force the employees to withdraw their support of the Union and to withdraw
from union membership.
Schecter in a fit of pique at being accused by the Union in its letter of coercing the
employees by seeking to have them sign the petition on December 11, and because
the employees had asked the Union to represent them, on December 12, 1958, can-
celed employee benefits and required them to consider that very day whether they
wished to be represented by the Union, after being well briefed that the Respondent
did not wish the Union to represent them. This is illegal economic interference,
coercion, and restraint, violative of Section 8(a)(1), of a very obvious nature, and
I so find.23 I do not attribute any merit to Schecter's statement in the meeting he
had during the afternoon of December 12 with the four-man employee committee
that the employees misunderstood him that morning regarding the cancellation of
benefits. He realized that the coercion in the cancellation of benefits was too ob-
vious, and retreated from it. But assuming that Schecter did not intend to cancel
the benefits with the exception of the leave on the two Fridays, there is no doubt
that he led the employees to believe that he was canceling them. This action alone
is violative of Section 8(a)(1).24 I cannot see any merit in the position that the
22 Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, 593; Graber Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
111 NLRB 167, 169, Mat-South Manufacturing Company, Inc, 120 NLRB 230, 232;
Southeastern Mills, Inc , 123 NLRB 1783 ; Ari ow Gas Corporation, 124 NLRB 766
n American Freightways Co., Inc., 124 NLRB 146.
21 See F. W. Woolworth Co., 101 NLRB 1457, 1458, footnote 2, and Walton Manu-
facturing Company, 124 NLRB 1331. Also see The Rein Co., 114 NLRB 694.
0
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union would have objected to the Friday holidays, since the hours were to have
been made up in advance of the holidays. The continuation of its position in
February 1959 that prior promised wage increases could not be given lest the Re-
spondent be charged with giving of benefits to defeat the Union, after it was on
notice by January 27, 1959, that the Union would not object to such increases, shows
that Respondent was merely relying on such a position as a crutch. The same can
be said with respect to the Friday holidays, and I so find.
I have also found that Respondent's President Sussman in his address to employees
of January 5, 1959, expressed his regrets that the employees saw fit to go to the
Union, and did not come to him with their problems, either collectively or severally,
noted that the employees who transferred from World Steel had received all the
benefits promised them, suggested that they bargain as a group directly with Respond-
ent, and assured the employees they need not have any fear of losing their jobs.
And I have found that at the close of Sussman's address, Mirsky advised the em-
ployees to follow Sussman's suggestion to bargain directly with Respondent, remark-
ing that if such a move did not work out the employees could always go back to the
Union. Coupled with these two findings was the finding that Respondent readily
granted the employees time and facilities to consider Sussman's and Mirsky's pro-
posals, and paid them for the time taken up by such consideration.
I find Respondent's conduct of January 5, 1959, to be coercive economic pressure
consisting of subtle threats to the security of employees' jobs if they did not follow
Respondent's wishes that the Union be abandoned as a collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, and the making of promises of benefit to the employees if they followed
Respondent's wishes with respect to collective bargaining. This is conduct clearly
violative of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act and I so find 25
Also violative of Section 8(a)(1) was Mirsky's showing of the Pioneer contract
to the employees on or about January 19, 1959, and his statement that Sussman
would give them anything in the contract if they bargained directly with Respondent
and abandoned the Union.26 And equally violative of Section 8 (a) (1) are Sussman's
requests of January and February 1959 to Zeleznick to assist him in his efforts to
cause the employees to abandon the Union, and the statements of Schecter to Orsi
and Garbizu in February 1959, and Mirsky's statement to Orsi in the same month,
that they could not be given wage increases because the other employees wanted the
Union, and Schecter's request to Orsi in the same month that he get the employees
to drop out of the Union, in order to be able to obtain the prior promised wage
increase. The economic benefits that would flow to Zeleznick, Orsi, and Garbizu
from their efforts to cause the abandonment of the Union were apparent from the
context of Sussman's statements to Zeleznick and Schecter's statements to Garbizu
and Orsi, and Mirsky's statement to Orsi. There was also an inherent threat in
Sussman's statements to Zeleznick. Since Respondent had written notice by Janu-
ary 27, 1959, that the Union would not object to the increases, Respondent did not
refuse to give them because it feared that it would be charged with promises of
benefit to discourage union membership and activity. As previously found, Re-
spondent resorted to this position to defeat the Union, and union activity and mem-
bership. If, in fact, it did not give the increases because of financial reasons, the
violation is present in any event because it attributed the failure to give them to
union activity and membership of the employees.
Against the background of Respondent's conduct of December 1958, and January
and February 1959, as stated supra, coupled with the discharges of Zeleznick and
Campagnola on March 13, 1959,27 I hold Schecter's statements to the employees in
the meeting held on April 17, 1959, supra, to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Although on January 5 and 6, 1959, they refused to do so, the employees de-
cided, following the meeting of April 17, to bargain directly with the Respondent,
and on April 21 and 22, 1959, did bargain and reach an agreement on a collective-
bargaining contract with Respondent. It is also to be noted that Schecter held the
meeting and made the statements therein 6 days before the Board-directed election
at which the employees were to determine the question of representation voluntarily,
pursuant to Board processes under the Act.
23 Automatic Supply Co, Inc., 119 NLRB 1074, 1090; Traders Oil Co. of Houston, 119
NLRB 746, 748-749; Adhessve Products Corporation. 117 NLRB 265, 280-281 ; Harrisburg
,building Units Co. et al, 116 NLRB 334, 350-353
20 "5f" System, Inc., et al, 118 NLRB 502, 503, 510, 513; Union Furniture Company,
Inc, 118 NLRB 1148, 1149, 1153, 1154-1155
27, I find, infra, t1Wt Zeleznick and Campagnola were discriminatorily discharged.
FIRE' DOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1143
2. Domination and interference with formation and administration of Employee
Bargaining Committee , and financial and other support of its formation and
administration
Domination or interference with the formation or administration of a labor
organization , or the contribution of financial or other support to the formation or
administration of a labor organization , is a violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act.
As stated supra, the employees of Respondent , by reason of the economic pressure
placed on them by Respondent starting with Sussman 's address to them on January 5,
1959, and up to and including the address of Schecter on April 17, including the
discharges of Zeleznick and Campagnola , decided on this latter date to group to-
gether as a bargaining unit and bargain collectively directly with Respondent with
respect to wages, hours , and working conditions , and on April 21 and 22 , 1959, did
so bargain and reach an agreement with Respondent on a collective-bargaining
agreement . This employee group, referred to as the Employee Bargaining Com-
mittee, became and was a labor organization.28
I conclude and find that Respondent , by reason of its conduct from January 5,
1959, to April 22, 1959, including the intervening discharges of Zeleznick and
Campagnola , initiated , sponsored , and promoted the formation of the Employee
Bargaining Committee , and thereby dominated and interfered with its formation in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.29 I also find that Respondent dominated
and interfered with the administration of the Employee Bargaining Committee in
violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. I premise this conclusion on the facts that
it was spawned by Respondent ; it has no formal organization , dues-paying require-
ment, or any other indicia of an independent organization ; its meetings were held
at the behest of Respondent , and apparently there have been no meetings since
April 22, 1959, because of the disinterest of Respondent . It is immaterial whether
the Respondent 's disinterest is due to the results of the Board -directed election, to
the filing of objections to the election by the Union , or to its filing of the charges
leading to the complaints in this proceeding . While the Employee Bargaining
Committee could well be capable of inducing Respondent to grant some benefits to
the employees as it appears to have done in the bargaining on April 21 and 22, this
factor does not overcome the aspects of its origin , formation , and general function-
ing which tend to render it subservient rather than independent of Respondent.30
The evidentiary findings show that Respondent permitted the employees to use
working time on January 5, 1959, and thereafter to consider demands that they
group together and bargain directly with Respondent , and paid them wages not only
for this time but also for the time taken to bargain with Respondent as well as the
time consumed in the preparation for bargaining . These findings also show that
Respondent permitted the employees to use the drafting room facilities for the con-
sideration of the demands and the preparation for bargaining . I conclude and find
that Respondent, by permitting the employees to use working time for consideration
of its demands relating to the formation of the Employee Bargaining Committee,
and for preparation for bargaining , and the payment of wages for such time and
the time consumed in bargaining , and the providing of facilities for the consideration
of its demands and the preparation for bargaining , contributed financial and other
support to both the formation and the administration of the Employee Bargaining
Committee in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and ( 1) of the Act.31
3. The discharges
I have made certain evidentiary findings in regard to the discharge of both
employees Zeleznick and Campagnola . They show that Zeleznick favored the
Union , and representation by it , and refused to assist Respondent in persuading the
employees to abandon the Union as a collective -bargaining representative and to
withdraw from membership in it . They also show that Campagnola along with
'3 McCulloch Motors Corporation , 120 NLRB 1709 , 1710 , 1723-1724. Sea also N.L R B.
v Cabot Carbon Company, etc, 2260 U S 203 , 210-213
20 Stow Manufacturing Co , 103 NLRB 1280, 1297 , enfd 217 F 2d 900 , 904-905 (C A 2),
cert . denied 348 U.S 964; Standard Cool Products Co, 110 NLRB 412, 421, enf. 224 F.
2d 465 ( C A. 1), cert denied 355 U S (102: Ben Corson Manufacturing Co.. et at , 112
NLRB 323, 345-346.
30 Ben Corson Manufacturing Co., et al . supra
31McCulloch Motors Corporation , 120 NLRB 1709, 1710 , 1713 ; Summers Fertilizer
Company, Inc ., 117 NLRB 243 , 254, enfd 251 F. 2d 514, 518, 519 (CA. 1).
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Romano spearheaded the initial movement to persuade the other employees to join
the Union and to select it as collective-bargaining representative. And these find-
ings also show that Zeleznick and Campagnola were the two highest-paid employees.
It does not appear to the Examiner that these employees were discharged by
reason of their close association with union activity or its leadership or close asso-
ciation with the Union. Zeleznick apparently did not have such close association.
Campagnola only assisted Romano with respect to the initial union activity. But
Respondent, particularly in the person of Sussman, was looking for some means to
defeat the union activity and representation by the Union. Sussman endeavored to
enlist Zeleznick, whom he considered the employee most highly respected and
regarded by the other employees, in Respondent's campaign against union activity
and membership and representation by the Union He failed in this effort. He
then discharged the two highest-paid employees. This plan had a twofold effect.
Since they were favorable to union activity and representation by the Union, it can
reasonably be considered to have instilled some of the employees with fear for their
jobs,32 and to have reduced significantly the number of employees in this small unit
who favored the Union and the union activity. As the evidence discloses, the vote
on April 23, 1959, was a tie. The Union would have had the majority if Zeleznick
and Campagnola had voted. This evidence warrants the inference that Respondent
in looking about for a crutch to assist it in defeating the Union as well as union
activity and membership, after failing in an attempt to enlist Zeleznick in its cause,
saw it in the reduced sales receipts coupled with the discharge of its two highest-
paid employees. I now draw this inference and so find.
Respondent's evidence does not support its position that the discharges were for
economic reasons. I do not give any weight to Respondent's evidence showing a
decrease in sales receipts from those of the month of October 1958, of $115,000 for
November, and $204,000 for December 1958; $158,000 for January, and $196,000
for February 1959, as Respondent failed to introduce any other evidence in the
light of which the sales figures could be properly evaluated. It is common knowl-
edge that the months from December to March 1 are within the cold weather period
in the New York City area. So the drop in sales could well have been seasonal.
Schecter, in December 1958, attributed the reduced receipts of Respondent to be
due at least in part to the difficulty in collecting for work done that was based on
orders carried over from World Steel. Then there are the admission that Respondent
had never discharged any employees for economic reasons, and the evidence that
Sussman in his January 5, 1959, address to the employees assured them that they
need not fear losing their jobs, and that there was an attrition of nine jobs including
those of Orsi, Garbizu, and Romano , which appear to have taken care of any
required reduction in work force. Sussman 's conversations with Zeleznick in
January and February 1959, do not indicate in the slightest that he was giving even
the slightest consideration to laying him off for economic reasons. And there is
also Respondent's unconvincing attempt to reconcile its interest in retaining Orsi and
Garbizu because of the investment they represented, with its unconcern with the
much larger investment it had in employees Zeleznick and Campagnola who had
many more years of experience and greater skill.
I conclude and find that Zeleznick and Campagnola were discharged by Re-
spondent in order to discourage membership in and representation by the Union, in
violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, which occurred in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act. I am convinced that
"'See Radio Officers' Union, etc (A. H Bull Steamship Company) v. N.L.R.B, 347
U. S. 17, 45.
FIREDOOR CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1145
the unfair labor practices committed are related to other unfair labor practices
proscribed, and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the Respondent's conduct in the past. Accordingly, in order to make effec-
tive the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, and thus effectuate the policies of
the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by the Act.
Since I have found that Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the Employee Bargaining Committee, and furnished financial
and other support to its formation and administration, I shall recommend that it
be ordered to cease and desist from dominating, interfering with, or furnishing
financial or other support to, the formation of any labor organization of its
employees, and from dommating, interfering with, or furnishing financial and other
support to the administration of the Employee Bargaining Committee or any other
labor organization of its employees. I shall also recommend that Respondent be
ordered to withdraw its recognition from, and to permanently disestablish, the
Employee Bargaining Committee, and refrain from recognizing it, or any successor
thereto, for the purpose of dealing with it as the representative of its employees
concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment. I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from giving effect to the April 22, 1959, agreement, or to any contracts
or agreements with the Employee Bargaining Committee. However, I am not
recommending that Respondent be required to vary the wages, hours, or other
conditions or benefits of employment in the April 22, 1959, agreement, or heretofore
established.
Since I have also found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Alvin Zeleznick and Richard Campagnola to discourage
membership in the Union, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from discouraging membership in the Union or any other labor organiza-
tion by discharging or refusing to reinstate employees, or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, and I shall recommend that Respondent offer to Zeleznick and Campagnola
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum
of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
earnings during said period, to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce, and Architectural and Engineering
Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization, all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. By dominating, interfering with, and furnishing assistance to, the formation
and administration of the Employee Bargaining Committee, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of Alvin Zeleznick and
Richard Campagnola, thereby discouraging membership in Architectural and Engi-
neering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]