Hope Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 853 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC. 853
Hope Industries , Inc. and Angelo Maldonado
Local 867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca and Angelo Maldonado . Cases 22-CA-4483
and 22-CB-1966
August 10, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 28, 1972, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent Employer and Respon-
dent Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions, and to adopt his
recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Respondent Hope Industries, Hawthorne, New
Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
and Respondent Local 867, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a
complaint i issued by the General Counsel on October 4.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that Hope Industries,
Inc., hereafter referred to as Respondent Company or
Hope, during May and June required its employees to
execute dues-deduction authorizations in favor of Local
867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereafter referred
to as Respondent Union or Teamsters, and warned its
employees they would be discharged if they failed to
execute such authorizations; that about June 3 Hope
notified its employees of its intention to deduct the union
dues and initiation fees from their wages and pay them to
Teamsters, although said employees had not authorized
such deductions or payments; and that about June 3 Hope
discharged Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William
Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanab-
na, and Diomedes Gonzales and has failed and refused to
reinstate them because of their refusal to execute dues-
checkoff authorizations, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3) of the Act.
The complaint alleges further that Teamsters during
May and June threatened Hope's employees that it would
cause Hope to discharge them unless they executed dues-
checkoff authorizations on its behalf, and that since about
June 3 it has requested and required Hope to refuse
employment to the above-named employees because they
failed to execute dues-checkoff authorizations on its
behalf, in violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2) of the Act.
In their duly filed respective answers , Respondents
denied committing the alleged violations and pleaded that
they acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of
a labor contract entered into between them on November
1, 1969. Hope pleaded further that the alleged dischargees
were terminated after they informed it that they were not
going to work any more and left the premises.
All parties were represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to file briefs . Briefs received from
the General Counsel and Hope have been duly consid-
ered.2 Upon the entire record3 in the cases, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
1 It appears that a majority of the employees of Respondent Employer
are Spanish-speaking and do not speak English We therefore order that the
Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision be posted in English
and Spanish.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: These matters,
proceedings under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, were
heard in Newark, New Jersey, on January 17 and 18, 1972,
1 Based on a charge filed in Case 22-CA-4483 on June 8 , 1971, and a
charge in Case 22-CB-1966 filed on July 28, 1971 All dates hereafter refer
to the year 1971 unless otherwise noted
2 An untimely filed brief from Teamsters has been returned pursuant to
At all times material herein Hope has maintained a plant
in New Jersey where it has been engaged in the manufac-
ture, assembly, sale, and distribution of truckbodies and
related products. In the course and conduct of its business
operations during 1970 it caused to be purchased,
transferred, and delivered to its plant truck parts and other
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were
transported to said plant in interstate commerce directly
from States of the United States other than the State of
New Jersey. Hope admits, and I find, at all times material
an order of the chief Trial Examiner
3 The opposed motion of the General Counsel to correct the transcript is
hereby granted as moved
198 NLRB No. 115
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein, that it has been engaged in commerce as an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters admits, and I find, at all times material herein,
that it has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Hope was organized under the aegis of Bogue Electric
Company pursuant to the Small Business Administration's
8(a) Program to train disadvantaged groups to make them
competitive employee-wise and to provide employment for
them. Both corporations have the same officers, and
Hope's business records, including its payroll, are kept by
and at Bogue Electric which is also responsible for Hope's
debts. At the time it was organized in 1969, Hope's
welding, panel wiring, and assembly departments began
operations on the premises of Bogue Electric in Patterson,
New Jersey, and its employees in those departments were
trained by Bogue Electric personnel. In the spring of 1970
Hope moved its operations to Hawthorne, New Jersey,
where it continues to function. The SBA's 8(a) Program
contemplates that, at the end of a certain period, Hope will
become independently viable and through a divestiture
agreement a completely separate entity. Currently, Bogue
Electric is a major subcontractor of Hope and the Army
Mobility Command in St. Louis is the only customer of
Hope. George Hewitt is vice president and general
manager of Hope. It also appears that a collective-
bargaining agreement was entered into between Hope and
the Union on November 25, 1969, effective November 1,
1969, through October 31, 1972, which contains a union-
security clause, a checkoff provision, and a grievance
procedure. At the time the contract was executed Hope
employed six part-time employees. During May 1970 it had
23 production and maintenance employees.
B. The Issues
The issues are:
Whether Hope (1) in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
threatened to discharge its employees unless they executed
dues-deduction authorizations in favor of Teamsters, and
discharged Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William
Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanab-
ria, and Diomedes Gonzales for their failure and refusal to
execute such authorizations, and (2) whether Hope notified
its employees of its intention to deduct their union dues
and initiation fees from their wages, although not author-
ized to do so, and to pay them to Teamsters, thereby
4 He also signed a checkoff authorization later on during 1970 While
previously employed by Bogue Electric he had also been a member of
Teamsters
5 Luis Rivera corroborated Moran's testimony that the employees were
neither aware of nor told that they had to pay union dues According to
Bernardo, he visited the plant on October 19, 1970, and obtained
membership applications and dues-deduction authorizations from a group
of 12 or 13 employees, including some who already were Teamsters
rendering unlawful assistance and support to Teamsters in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).
Whether Teamsters in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) threatened to cause the discharge of those
employees who refused to sign dues-deduction authoriza-
tions and caused Hope to discriminate in regard to their
hire and terms and conditions of employment by discharg-
ing the above-named employees because of their refusal to
execute such authorizations.
C. The Alleged Threats and Discharges
Leandro Moran testified as follows: He began working
for Hope as an inspector in September 1970 shortly after
having been laid off by Bogue Electric. On October 19,
1970, Bernard Bernardo and James Walker, Teamsters
business representatives, visited Hope's plant for the
purpose of soliciting membership applications. Moran,
who speaks English as well as Spanish, acted as interpreter
for those Spanish-speaking employees who comprise a
majority of Hope's employees and do not understand
English. Pursuant to instructions from the Teamsters
representatives, he explained to the employees that they
were being requested to sign union membership applica-
tions, and he signed one himself.4 All he told them was that
the cards were membership applications, that they would
get a fair contract, and that Teamsters would represent
them. He did not mention union dues nor did he state that
there was a bargaining contract which required the signing
of membership applications. He was neither advised nor
aware of the existence of a union contract and was assured
by the union representatives that they would return within
30 days and advise them of any developments relating to
the Union.5 The following month he was notified by
Hewitt that Teamsters had designated him to be shop
steward.
Not hearing from the Teamsters representatives for
about a month he called Bernardo and Walker in
November 1970 on separate occasions to come to the plant
and advise the employees about any union developments,
but neither one appeared. In March, Walker informed him
by telephone that he and the employees were in arrears for
union dues. When he asked how that could be, he was told
that there was a union contract. Moran then asked to see
the contract and he was referred to the Company's file
where he could see one. There, for the first time , he became
aware of and saw Hope's copy of a contract. Later that
month Walker came to the plant and while meeting with
the employees, he read off the provisions of the contract.
After Moran translated them into Spanish, the employees
expressed their dissatisfaction with its provisions, particu-
larly the lack of any hospitalization insurance and only six
paid holidays, and they refused to sign membership
applications and dues-deduction authorizations, as re-
quested by Walker. In May, Bernardo and Walker visited
members and also the alleged dischargees , Torres. Rivera, Maldonado, and
Sanabna, as new members At that time he asked Moran to explain in
Spanish to the non-English- speaking employees that the top half of the card
to be signed was an application for union membership while the bottom half
was an authorization for dues deduction The membership application was
printed on a card which was connected by a perforated line to another card
containing the dues-deduction authorization All the employees signed both
cards at that time
HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC. 855
the plant and through Moran told the employees either to
sign up , referring to the membership applications and
dues-deduction authorizations , or be terminated , and that
they would not have any nonunion people working there .6
On June 2 , Walker again visited the plant and spoke to
the employees with Moran acting as interpreter. Once
again he asked the employees to sign membership
applications and dues-deduction authorizations . When no
one signed , Walker told them to sign or be terminated, and
that the plant could be closed.?
Moran testified further that Hewitt in a conversation
with him on June 2 stated that the employees would be
given a week to decide whether to sign , and if they
continued to refuse to do so they would be terminated.
During the following morning on June 3 , Maldonado, who
had been absent the previous day and unaware of what
had been told to the other employees , was called to
Hewitt 's office and told through Moran , as interpreter,
either to sign the membership application and dues-
deduction authorization or be discharged.8 That afternoon
the employees upon receiving the envelopes containing
their wages found two slips enclosed . One in English and
the other in a Spanish translation advised each of them
that a specified amount of money for union dues and
initiation fees was to be deducted from their wages until all
arrears were paid up. After discussing among themselves
what course to take , about 12 employees, including Moran,
left the plant about 2 p.m. without advising Hewitt, and
went to the Board 's Regional Offices to seek advice
concerning dues deductions . They remained at the Region-
al Office until about 4 p.m. and then left. They did not
return to the plant that afternoon because it was so close to
their 4 : 30 p.m . quitting time . The following morning they
reported for work at their usual starting time . There, they
found that their timecards had been removed from the rack
except for four cards-those of Moran , Foreman Ritchie,
and employees Juan Cassareigo and Fred Tyler. He
(Moran) then approached Hewitt and asked about the
missing cards and was advised that the employees whose
timecards were missing from the rack had quit and were no
longer employed .9 Three of the employees , Theodore
6 Both Walker and Bernardo testified about a meeting with the
employees in May as follows Walker stated he met with the employees to
make arrangements to collect the back dues and so advised them through
Moran They, however, refused to pay any dues because of their
dissatisfaction with the terms of the contract Bernardo testified he and
Walker met with the employees and told them through Moran that they had
to join Teamsters and pay an initiation fee, that if they signed the checkoff
forms Hope would deduct the dues from their wages and send them to
Teamsters, otherwise they would have to pay the dues directly to Teamsters,
and that the majority of the employees stated they wished to take the cards
home and fill them out
7 According to Walker, he returned to the plant on June 2 and advised
the employees that Hope would improve their contract terms after the dues
problem was resolved, but they refused and demanded that the terms of the
contract be improved in their favor before they would pay any dues He also
denied telling the employees they would lose their Jobs if they failed to sign
the checkoff authorizations However, his pretrial affidavit specifically
states that during the early part of 1971 he visited the plant and informed
the employees that they would have to pay union dues, that the new
employees would have to sign union membership applications and dues-
deduction authorizations, and that when they refused he advised them they
would have to sign the cards in order to continue working for the Company
A few days later he again visited the plant and while meeting with the
employees, Hewitt appeared and told them they would have to sign the
Popoff, I FranciscoI Emmelo, ands Hector IRobledo, there-
upon volunteered to sign the cards if they could return to
their jobs. Hewitt replied that he was agreeable but he
would have to call Teamsters to obtain its approval and
told the three employees to return that afternoon.10 When
they returned, Hewitt advised them that they could sign up
and resume working, which they did. After June 4, new
employees were told by Moran pursuant to Walker's
instructions that they were required to sign both a union
membership application and a dues-checkoff authoriza-
tion.
Other testimony reveals that each of the seven alleged
dischargees corroborated Moran's testimony to that effect
that at one time or another in their meetings with
Teamsters representatives they were threatened with the
loss of their jobs unless they signed cards for union
membership and dues checkoff; that on June 2 according
to Rivera the employees asked Hewitt why dues deductions
were going to be taken from their wages and were told they
would be suspended if they refused to sign the cards; that
Juan Matos, Diomedes Gonzales, and Generoso Gonzales
stated that they never signed any union cards; it and that
Maldonado, Sanabria, and Torres testified that they signed
membership applications only in October but never signed
any other cards.
In explanation of the Teamsters demand that new cards
be signed by those employees who had already signed them
on October 19, 1970,12 Bernardo testified that Teamsters
kept the signed membership applications and, after
detaching the dues-deduction authorizations, sent them by
letter of October 27, 1970, to Hope with instructions
explaining the procedure to be followed with respect to
handling the dues,13 and that when Teamsters received no
dues deductions from Hope he visited Bogue Electnc to
find out why, and there saw the authorizations and the
covering instructions and was told by Bogue Electric
personnel that they had neglected to make the deductions
because ;they; were) having' too fast a changeover. Thereaf-
ter, he was advised by Bogue Electric that the authorization
cards had been misplaced or lost, and he then demanded
membership application and checkoff forms pursuant to the contract or
they would be terminated Bernardo testified that on June 2 he and Walker
met with the employees and told them that no dues were being paid, that
Hope had misplaced the checkoff authorizations. that their failure to pay
dues would cause their termination, and that they refused to pay back dues
stating they would quit and walk off before doing so
" Maldonado corroborated Moran's testimony relative to his conversa-
tion with Hewitt
9 Hewitt testified that during the afternoon of June 3. his foreman
advised him that the employees had left because of the slips placed in their
pay envelopes, that he then directed the timekeeper to remove their cards
because they were no longer employed as far as he was concerned, and that
he began hiring new employees
is Bernardo testified without contradiction that Hewitt called him to
report that the employees had just left the plant , and was told that the
Union would not object to the reinstatement of those employees who had
previously refused to sign checkoff authorizations if they did so now
i i Each of them began working for Hope after October 1970
11 The membership applications of 15 employees, including those of
Rivera, Maldonado, Sanabria, and Torres were produced and admitted in
evidence
i i Hewitt testified to receiving the authorizations and forwarding them
to Bogue Electric
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
new authorizations from the employees to replace those
which had been lost.
D. Conclusions
1. The conduct of Hope
The undenied testimony of Moran, Rivera, and Maldo-
nado establishes that Hewitt threatened the employees that
they would be terminated if they refused to sign the dues
checkoffs. The Board has repeatedly held that dues
checkoffs must be made "voluntarily," and that employees
have the right under Section 7 of the Act to refuse to sign
such authonzations.14 Thus, the threats by Hewitt clearly
coerced them in the exercise of their rights in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Hewitt's threats also served to
foster and support Teamsters in violation of Section
8(a)(2). Zidell Explorations, Inc., 175 NLRB 887. Hope's
announced intention to start deducting union dues from its
employees' wages, as indicated in the notifications en-
closed in their pay envelopes, without their authorizations
(as found, infra) also coerced them and served to support
Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).
The General Counsel contends further that the alleged
dischargees were fired because of their refusal to execute
checkoff authorizations. Hope claims that they quit when
they left the plant without notifying or consulting him
during the afternoon of June 3. It appears, however, that
Hewitt was informed by his foreman that the employees
left because of the notifications placed in their pay
envelopes. Even assuming as testified to by Bernardo that
on June 2 the employees threatened to quit and walk off
the job before paying union dues, they nevertheless
continued on the job until the following afternoon when
they decided to seek advice at the Board's Regional Office.
There is no evidence that a decision was reached by them
at that time to quit their jobs, nor did they advise
management to that effect. By going to the Board's offices
they engaged in protected, concerted activity. Their failure
to return to the plant that afternoon was due to the fact
that it was so close to their regular quitting time. However,
they reported for work the following morning at the usual
starting time. It is significant that Hewitt was willing to
permit them to resume working if they signed dues
authorizations, and that he did so after obtaining the
approval of Teamsters with respect to the those employees
who volunteered to sign such authorizations. In view of
Hewitt's previous threats, this tends to establish that the
real reason for regarding the dischargees as terminated was
their refusal to sign the checkoff authorizations. I,
therefore, find that the dischargees were terminated
because they engaged in protected, concerted activities on
the afternoon of June 3, and refused to sign checkoff
authorizations, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
2. The conduct of Teamsters
Teamsters asserts that 15 employees, including Maldona-
do, Rivera, Torres, and Sanabna, signed checkoff authori-
zations as well as union membership applications on
October 19, 1970, and that the authorizations have been
misplaced or lost. However, with regard to the signing of
the authorizations, Moran testified that he neither was
instructed to tell the employees in Spanish to sign the
authorizations nor did he ask them to do so, and several
employees corroborated Moran's testimony that they were
told to sign only the membership applications. Maldonado,
Rivera, Torres, and Sanabria also denied that they ever
signed anything other than the membership applications.
The Teamsters agents not knowing any Spanish were in no
position to deny whatever Moran actually told the
employees, but claim that Moran was instructed to tell the
employees to sign both cards. Only one witness, Arthur
Bolds, an English-speaking employee, testified that he
signed both a membership application and dues authoriza-
tion on October 19, 1970, after receiving a request in
English to sign both cards. However, it appears that he had
been a member of Teamsters for the preceding 4 years
while working for Bogue Electric, immediately prior to
being hired by Hope. Nor did he state that he saw any
other employees signing checkoff authorizations.
Oddly enough, the covering letter sent by Teamsters to
Hope was produced but not the authorizations. Hewitt's
testimony about receiving the authorizations was vague
and he was unable to identify any of the employees whose
cards he received. Nor was anyone from Bogue Electric
called to testify about the authorizations. Furthermore, the
membership applications of Rivera, Maldonado, Torres,
and Sanabria indicate that initiation fees of $10 were paid
by each of them on October 19, 1970. According to
Teamsters, the initiation fee was only $10 for members
signing up at that time, and subsequently was to be raised
to $35. Yet, the notification slips placed in their envelopes
state that they owed $35 for initiation fees , and no credit
was given for the $10 which receipt was acknowledged on
October 19. No explanation was given for this inconsisten-
cy. Based on the foregoing facts and the demeanor of the
witnesses , I credit the testimony of Moran and the above-
named dischargees that they did not sign dues authoriza-
tions on October 19, 1970, or at any time thereafter.15
Apparently, there is no claim that the other dischargees,
Matos and the two Gonzaleses, who were hired after
October 1970, ever signed checkoff authorizations.
It is undisputed that on several occasions Teamsters
demanded that the employees sign dues authorizations.
The evidence is in conflict as to whether they were
threatened with discharge for refusing to do so. On these
occasions Moran, who was used as interpreter by Team-
sters, testified that he was instructed to inform the non-
English-speaking employees that unless they signed the
authorizations they would be terminated, and stated that
he conveyed that threat on more than one occasion.
Several employees testified that he transmitted the threat to
them. Nor is there any evidence to contradict what he
actually told them. 16 Based on his demeanor and the
manner in which the alleged threats accord with the
14 International Harvester Co, 95 NLRB 730, 737
15 Nor would it affect the results reached infra even if they had signed
authorizations
16 It is also pertinent to note that on these occasions Moran was also the
acknowledged shop steward
HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC.
followup action taken by Hope, I credit his testimony as to
what he was instructed to tell the employees and what he
actually told them. As indicated above, the Board had
repeatedly held that dues-checkoff authorizations must be
made voluntarily, and that employees have the right under
Section 7 of the Act to refuse to sign checkoff authoriza-
tions. Any conduct, expressed or implied, which coerces an
employee in his attempt to exercise this right clearly
violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 601, AFL-CIO
(Westinghouse Electric Corporation), 180 NLRB 1062. See
also International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America (Ruberoid Company), 173 NLRB 87. I
therefore conclude that Teamsters by their threats violated
Section 8(a)(I)(A) of the Act.17
It also appears that the dischargees were fired following
the unlawful threats by Teamsters to have them terminated
for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations. Hewitt readily
agreed to reinstate them provided they would sign such
authorizations and Teamsters did not object. The link
between the discharges and Teamsters with Bernardo in
which he asked for permission to reinstate those employees
who agreed to sign checkoff authorizations. Upon obtain-
ing it, he immediately reinstated the three employees who
volunteered to sign the authorizations. Patently, this
establishes that the discharges were not only motivated and
caused by Teamsters but also completely controlled by it.
Other evidence supporting this conclusion is contained in
Hewitt's reply to the employees on June 2 that he could do
nothing about Teamsters threat to have them discharged
for failure to sign authorizations cards, and that he would
give the employees I week to think about whether or not to
sign, otherwise they would lose their jobs. I, accordingly,
conclude that Teamsters caused Hope to discriminate
against the dischargees because of their refusal to sign
checkoff authorizations in violation of Section 8(b)(1) and
(2) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent Hope's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein, Respondent Hope has
been engaged in commerce as an employer within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. At all times material herein , Respondent Teamsters
17 The General Counsel also contends that inasmuch as Teamsters failed
in its answer to deny par. 17 of the complaint, alleging that Teamsters
threatened that it would cause Hope to discharge the employees who did
not execute checkoff authorizations, it, therefore, admitted that allegation
pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations. I find this argument
857
has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening to discharge or cause the discharge of
Hope 's employees if they refused to sign checkoff
authorizations , thereby restraining and coercing them in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights, Hope violated Section
8(a)(1) and Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
4. By discharging employees for engaging in protected,
concerted activity when they left their jobs to seek Board
advice and for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations,
and by notifying them that dues would be deducted from
their wages although not authorized, Hope violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
5. By causing Hope to discharge employees for refusing
to sign checkoff authorizations , Teamsters violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
unlawful conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recommend
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. Having found that Hope unlawfully discharged
Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Genero-
so Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanabna, and Dio-
medes Gonzales, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act, and that Respondent Teamsters caused their
discharge, I shall recommend that Hope, unless it has
already done so, offer them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and jointly
and severally with Teamsters make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered as a result of their
unlawful discharges. Backpay shall be computed on a
quarterly basis and in a manner consistent with the Board's
policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
The General Counsel also requests that Hope be ordered
to cease and desist from recognizing Teamsters unless and
until certified by the Board and from giving effect to the
current collective-bargaining agreement or any renewal
thereof.18 This request is based on the unlawful threats of
Hope and Teamsters to the employees and on their
discharges, which it is asserted has adversely affected
Teamsters ability to represent the unit employees. He
submits that such conduct can be used to shed light upon
the unfair labor practices occurring with the 10(b) period
in fashioning a remedy, and in support cites Arden
Furniture, 164 NLRB 1163, 1164, fn. 4, where the Board
stated that a contract presumptively lawful when entered
into may be set aside only upon a finding that the union's
ability to represent the employees in the daily administra-
tion of its contract has been adversely affected by unlawful
unavailing This issue was fully litigated at the hearing without any
objection by the General Counsel
18 At the time the contract was executed , Hope employed only a few
part-time employees and had not begun full operations.
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assistance or domination within the 10(b) period, and that
this in turn depends upon the nature and impact of such
conduct. I find no substantial support for such a finding
herein based on the violations found during the 10(b)
period. In the event that such relief is found not warranted
herein, the General Counsel requests in view of the
contract's automatic renewal clause that, upon the con-
tract's expiration, Hope be ordered to withdraw and
withhold recognition from Teamsters unless and until it is
certified by the Board. Inasmuch as the employees have
recourse under the Act to move to end Teamsters
representation, should they so desire, there is no compel-
ling need to impose an automatic termination of its
representation.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in the cases, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended: 19
ORDER
A. Hope Industries, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to discharge employees for refusing to
sign checkoff authorizations.
(b) Notifying employees that union dues and initiation
fees will be deducted from their wages although not
authorized by them.
(c) Discharging employees for participating in protected,
concerted activities and/or for refusing to sign checkoff
authorizations.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Unless it has already done so, offer to Angelo
Maldonado, Luis Rivera, William Torres, Generoso
Gonzales, Juan Matos, Radames Sanabria, and Diomedes
Gonzales immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and jointly and severally with
Local 867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
because of their unlawful termination of employment by
paying to each of them a sum of money computed in the
manner specified in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
20 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its offices in Hawthorne, New Jersey, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 20 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 22, after being duly signed by its representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.2i
B. Local 867, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to cause Hope Industries, Inc., to
discharge employees for refusing to sign checkoff authori-
zations.
(b) Causing Hope Industries, Inc., to discharge employ-
ees for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees of Hope Industries, Inc., or any other employer
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Hope Indus-
tries, Inc., make whole Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera,
William Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos, Ra-
dames Sanabria, and Diomedes Gonzales for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered because of their unlawful
termination of employment by paying to each of them a
sum of money computed in the manner specified in the
section of this Decision entitle "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its offices wherever maintained, and at its
meeting hall, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."22 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly
signed by its representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon-
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
21 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read.
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
22 See In 20, supra
HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC.
dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional
Director for Region 22 for posting by Hope Industries,
Inc., if willing, at all places where notices to its employees
are customarily posted.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.23
23 See fn 22, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found after
trial that we violated Federal law by threatening to
discharge employees for refusing to sign dues-checkoff
authorizations, discharging employees for engaging in
protected, concerted activities and/or refusing to sign
dues-checkoff authorizations, and notifying employees that
union dues and initiation fees would be deducted from
their wages although not authorized:
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge or discharge you
for refusing to sign checkoff authorizations.
WE WILL NOT discharge you for engaging in
protected, concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT notify you of our intent to deduct or
deduct union dues or initiation fees from your wages
unless authorized by you.
WE WILL immediately offer, if we have not already
done so, to reinstate Angelo Maldonado, Luis Rivera,
William Torres, Generoso Gonzales, Juan Matos,
Radames Sanabria, and Diomedes Gonzales to their
former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges and jointly
and severally with Local 867, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, make them whole for any wages
they may have lost because of their unlawful discharge.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with or
coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
HOPE INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
859
We will notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found after
trial that we violated Federal law by threatening to have
employees of Hope Industries, Inc., discharged for refusing
to sign dues-checkoff authorizations, and then causing
their discharge:
WE WILL NOT threaten to have employees of Hope
Industries, Inc., discharged for refusing to sign dues-
checkoff authorizations.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Hope
Industries, Inc., to discharge its employees for refusing
to sign dues-checkoff authorizations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner coerce or
restrain employee-members in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
LOCAL 867, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
• Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-2100.