Independent Assn. of Steel Fabricators

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 264 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Independent Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc.;
Achilles Construction Co., Inc.; Greenpoint Orna-
mental and Structural Iron Works, Inc.; Heuser
Iron Works, Inc.; Ikenson Iron Works, Inc.; Kuno
Steel Products Corp.; Long Island Steel Products
Co., Inc.; Master Iron Craft Corp.; Melto Metal
Products Co., Inc.; Mohawk Steel Fabricators,
Inc.; The Peele Company; Roman Iron Works,
Inc.; Spigner and Sons Structural Steel Co., Inc.;
S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc. and Paxton Metalcraft
Corp., Division of Apex Industries, Inc.; Koenig
Iron Works, Inc.; Trojan Steel Corp.; G. Zaffino
and Sons, Inc.; Roma Iron Works, Inc. and
Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron
Works, Inc. and Roma Iron Works, Inc. and
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, and Steel, Metals,
Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehouse-
men, Local 810, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Party to the
Contract
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Asso-
ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFLCIO and Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local
810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America. Cases 29-CA-4853, 29-CA-
4922, 29-CA-4772, 29-CA-4921, and 29-CB-
2461
August 11, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On March 14, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in
these consolidated proceedings. Thereafter, Respon-
dents filed exceptions with supporting briefs and the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
231 NLRB No. 31
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondents Independent Associ-
ation of Steel Fabricators, Inc., New York, New
York, and its Employer-Members (listed in the
caption hereof), their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, and Respondent Shopmen's Local Union
No. 455, International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, New
York, New York, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
] Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Administrative Law Judge, in crediting Local 455 President Colavito
over Association President Spigner with regard to a private conversation in
August 1975, noted that a statement made by Spigner concerning "The
Teamsters" was "probably referring to Local 810," whereas the record
reflects that, at least in this context, Spigne. was referring to Teamsters
Local 819. We nevertheless find that the Administrative Law Judge's
crediting of Colavito is supported by other substantial evidence in the
record.
2 In adopting the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, we do not
rely on his statement in sec. Ill, J, par. 8. that the withdrawal of
authorization to bargain by the 17 Employers constituted a violation of Sec.
8(aX5) of the Act. Although the Administrative Law Judge correctly noted
that the withdrawal was untimely, this would not, in and of itself, be a
violation of Sec. 8(a)(). Rather, the untimely withdrawal followed by the
Union's demand that bargaining continue in the multiemployer unit and the
Employers' subsequent refusal combined to form the basis for an 8(aX5)
refusal to bargain.
Furthermore, we do not rely on the intimation of the Administrative Law
Judge in sec. Ill, J, par. 5, that the unfair labor practices of the Association
and its Employer-Members contributed to a finding of an untimely or
ineffective withdrawal from the multiemployer unit, inasmuch as we would
find the withdrawal to be untimely and ineffective even absent any unfair
labor practices.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on various days
between June 7 and July 11, 1975, upon a consolidated
amended complaint based upon four separate charges and
amendments thereto filed by Shopmen's Local Union No.
455, International Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, here called Local
455, and upon a complaint against Local 455, based upon a
charge filed by Local 810, International Brotherhood of
264
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called Local 810.1
The consolidated amended complaint in the four cases
against the named Employers and the Independent
Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., herein called the
Association, alleges interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8(aX ) of the Act; unlawful assistance
to Local 810 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act;
discriminatory discharge and refusal to reinstate striking
employee members of Local 455 upon their unconditional
offer to return to work, in violation of Section 8(aX3) of the
Act; and refusing to bargain with Local 455 by untimely
withdrawal from the Association and other actions in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The complaint against Local 455 (Case 29-CB-2461)
alleges threats of violence and destruction of property in
violation of Section 8(b)(lXA) of the Act.
The respective answers of all Respondents in all the cases
denied the commission of unfair labor practices, while
admitting other matters such as jurisdiction of the Board
over Respondents and subject matter.
Upon the entire record,2 and upon consideration of the
briefs and arguments of the parties, and upon my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESSES OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS
The Association, which at all times material herein has
maintained an office and place of business in Brooklyn,
New York, performs, and has performed, among other
things, the function of negotiating and executing collective-
bargaining agreements with Local 455, on behalf of its
members who are the named individual Respondent
Employers and other employers engaged in like or similar
businesses.
Each of the individually named Respondent Employers,
all members of the Association, are corporations maintain-
ing offices and facilities in the city of New York and its
environs, State of New York, and each is engaged in some
branch of the business of manufacturing, selling, distrib-
uting, and installing various products made of iron, steel,
and other metals and related products. During the year
immediately preceding the issuance of the consolidated
amended complaint herein, the employer-members of the
Association derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000
and purchased and caused to be transported to their places
of business iron, steel, metal products, and other goods and
materials of a value in excess of $50,000 of which goods
and materials, items of a value in excess of $50,000, were
transported and delivered to their places of business
directly from States other than the State of New York.
I The charge in Case 29-CA-4921 was filed as Case 2-CA-1404 on
December 18, 1975, and the complaint in that case was issued January 28,
1976. The charge in Case 29-CA-4772 was filed December 18, 1975, and the
complaint in that case was issued February 9, 1976. The original charge in
Case 29-CA-4853 was filed February 6, 1976, and the first amended charge
in that case was filed March 1, 1976. The original charge in Case 29-CA-
4922 was filed as Case 2-CA-14106 on February 9, 1976, and the first
amended charge in that case was filed March I, 1976. On April 27, 1976, a
consolidated amended complaint in all of the foregoing numbered cases was
0
Additionally, other enterprises located in the State of New
York, each of which other enterprises had received said
goods and materials in interstate commerce directly from
States in the United States other than the states in which
they were located also sold items and shipped the same to
Respondent Employers of a value in excess of $50,000.
Accordingly, it is admitted, and I find and conclude, that
Respondent Association and Respondent Employers here-
in, and each of them, are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is admitted, and I find, that Local 455 and Local 810
are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
As above noted, Respondent Employers are engaged in
the various branches of the iron and steel construction and
fabrication business. They are scattered over various parts
of the city of New York and virtually all of its boroughs
and also in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk on Long
Island and north of New York City in Rockland and
Westchester Counties. Respondent Employers' employees
have been represented for various lengths of time by Local
455, the relationship in some instances going back over a
quarter of a century. For the most part, each of these
Respondent Employers has dealt with Local 455 individu-
ally and has, with perhaps some exceptions, been economi-
cally too weak to do more than accept a more or less
standardized contract evolved by Local 455, with each
contract varying to the extent that the shops had individual
problems which required specialized clauses in their
various contracts.
The employees in the shops of Respondent Employers,
and other employers like situated, are basically production
and maintenance employees and in some instances there
are plant clericals. These general classifications broadly
describe the employees represented by Local 455 in the
various shops under contract.
At the same time, for a number of years past, another
group of employers, also engaged in the same industry but
whose end product or basic work might have varied
somewhat from those of the Employers named herein as
Respondents, had formed an association named "Allied
Building Metals Industries, Inc.," herein called Allied,
which has negotiated multiemployer collective-bargaining
agreements with Local 455 for a number of recent years. It
is evident from the record that some Respondent Employ-
ers had, at various times, been members of Allied.
issued, superseding all complaints in any of the cases theretofore issued. On
May 20, 1976, an amendment to the said consolidated complaint was issued.
The complaint in Case 29-CB-2461 was issued June 4, 1976, based upon
a charge filed by Local 210 on April 14, 1976. That case was ordered
consolidated at the heanng by the Administrative Law Judge because it
concerned matter directly connected with one of the defenses of Respon-
dents in the four other cases, as hereinafter related.
2 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
265
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, before the formation of the Association herein,
all Respondent Employers had been dealing independently
with Local 455.
As is well known, the years 1974 and 1975 were very bad
years, economically, for the building and construction
trades industry with which all Respondent Employers
herein are closely allied. In addition, the contracts which
Local 455 termed "the standard independent contracts,"
and to which Respondent Employers herein were signato-
ries individually, evidently did not have a number of
provisions which Respondent Employers herein desired to
have and which would have, evidently, benefited them
economically. In view of the recession in the construction
industry, and in view of the fact that Allied, as a
multiemployer bargaining association, had received what
Respondent Employers herein consider more advanta-
geous contracts, early in 1975, Respondent Employers
herein decided to form the Association in order, among
other things, to be able to exercise and use the additional
economic "clout" which they presumed they would have if
they bargained on an associationwide basis, rather than as
individuals, in order to obtain a contract equally as
beneficial as that enjoyed by the members of Allied. In
early 1975 the Association was formed as a trade
association to deal not only with Local 455 but also with
other unions representing various employees of Respon-
dents. In fact, in the most recent renewal year Respondent
Spigner had requested the same benefits, as an individual
employer, that were received by the members of Allied, but
had not been able to obtain them.
After the formation of the Association, on April 24, 1975,
its president, Irving D. Spigner, notified Local 455 (after
Local 455 had notified the individual Employers that their
contracts were due to expire on June 30, 1975), that the
Association had been formed and that it was authorized to
bargain on behalf of the members of the Association and
listed the membership of the Association. Thereafter, Local
455 and the Association began bargaining, but at the
expiration of the individual contracts on June 30, 1975,
inasmuch as no agreement had been reached, the employ-
ees of the various Employers who were members of Local
455 went out on strike. Thereafter, some further bargaining
took place but, by reason of the inability to reach
agreement, all but five of the employer-members of the
Association, named as Respondents herein, notified Local
455 through the Association that the Association was no
longer authorized to bargain with Local 455 on their
behalf.
Additionally, some of the members of the Association
during all this time and, assertedly, even before the times
during which bargaining began in the late spring of 1975
began to encourage their employees to leave Local 455 and
join Local 810, for the reason that these Employers felt that
they could obtain more advantageous contract terms from
Local 810 than they could from Local 455. It is also
gainsaid that Local 810 is, and at all times material hereto
has been, actively attempting to organize employees of
employers engaged in the same industry as the members of
the Association herein. As a result, a number of the
3 Herbert Bernstein, et al., a co-partnership d/b/a Laura Modes Company,
144 NLRB 1592 (1963).
members of the Association who are Respondents in the
instant proceeding ultimately signed collective-bargaining
agreements with Local 810 and, in the complaint herein,
are accused of having done so despite the fact that their
employees had not chosen Local 810 as their bargaining
representatives. These cases shall be dealt with in detail
hereinafter.
It is also alleged in the complaint that some of
Respondent Employers' employees, when instructed by the
business agents and various officials of Local 455, made
unconditional offers to return to work during what the
General Counsel claims to have been an unfair practice
strike, and the various Respondent Employers to whom
such applications were made refused discriminatorily to
reinstate such employees.
Respondent Employers named herein and the Associa-
tion defend on a number of bases. They contend that their
withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining with Local 455
came only after impasse was reached in bargaining.
Although admitting the Board has held that impasse alone
does not warrant withdrawal from multiemployer bargain-
ing, Respondents contend that other factors, together with
the impasse, created an unusual situation which warranted
withdrawal. Among the factors cited by Respondents are
(1) that Local 455 was never in favor of and, in fact, sought
to break up the Association because it did not desire to give
to the Association members the beneficial terms and
conditions enjoyed by the members of Allied; (2) that
Local 455 never bargained in good faith with the Associa-
tion and, accordingly, association bargaining constituted a
fruitless endeavor which would never have been brought to
fruition because of the alleged plan of Local 455 not to
come to an agreement with the Association on behalf of the
Association's members; (3) alleged violence during picket-
ing by Local 455 and its members was so extensive and
pervasive that not only should it be considered as a factor,
along with the impasse and the reluctance and refusal of
Local 455 to bargain in good faith, but also, even assuming
that Respondents refused to bargain in good faith with
Local 455, and even assuming that the withdrawal from the
multiemployer bargaining through the Association was
untimely and therefore improper, the Board should
withhold a bargaining order.3 Additionally, Respondents
contend that there was no discriminatory refusal to
reinstate any of the employees because the offer made to
return to work was not unconditional, but was conditioned
upon the Employers signing and becoming a party to the
agreement ultimately entered into between the few remain-
ing members of the Association who dealt singly with
Local 455 after the withdrawal from multiemployer
bargaining of the vast majority of the Association members
who are Respondents in this proceeding.
With regard to the charges filed by Local 810 against
Local 455 alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1A) of the
Act, based upon the violence relied upon by employer-
members of the Association as part of their defense, Local
455 denies the commission of any of the so-called violent
occurrences and, in fact, the General Counsel's complaint
resulting from the charges filed by Local 810 alleges only
266
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
several instances of violation, some threats by various
union officials of violence, the destruction of property of
the Employers, and coercive taking of photographs. These
allegations, as noted above, are denied by Local 455. The
issues presented in the case against Local 455 deal basically
with credibility. In fact, much of the contention of violence
and threats thereof by Local 455 involved in both the
proceedings against Respondent Employers herein and
against Local 455 involves serious and difficult questions of
credibility.
Thus, the issues presented by the pleadings and the
various contentions of the parties are:
i. Did the Respondent Employers named in the
complaint herein unlawfully and untimely withdraw from
association and multiemployer bargaining in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act?
2. Did the Respondent Employers unlawfully assist
Local 810 to organize their employees by encouraging its
employees to join Local 810 and threatening reprisals if
they did not and commit other acts in support thereof in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act?
3. Did the employees of the Respondent Employers
unconditionally offer to return to work and, if so, did said
Respondents discriminatorily refuse to reinstate the said
employees because of their activities on behalf of Local 455
and thereby discourage membership in Local 455 in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act?
4. Did some of the Employers discharge employees for
refusing to abandon Local 455 and join Local 810?
5. Did the conduct of various officials and pickets who
picketed the various Respondent Employers' establish-
ments constitute such pervasive violent activities as would
warrant the withholding of a bargaining order by the
Board?
6. Did the conduct of the union officials constitute
threats of violence and such destruction of property as
would constitute coercion of employees in violation of
Section 8(bX)()(A) of the Act?
There are a number of subsidiary issues also presented in
connection with the above-cited principal issues and these
will be dealt with in connection therewith.
B. The Negotiations and the Strike
On or about April 9, 1975, Local 455 sent to 18
Employers, excluding Spigner and Sons, letters over the
signature of William Colavito, Local 455 president, to the
effect that Local 455 was terminating the current contracts
of all these independent Employers at the end of the
current contract year (June 30, 1975) and that Local 455
desired to meet with representatives of each of the said
Employers to negotiate a new agreement. On April 21,
1975, the newly formed Association, by letter, over the
signature of its president, Irving D. Spigner, informed
Local 455 that the Companies listed on the letter had
authorized the Association to acknowledge Local 455's
letter of intention to terminate the existing collective-
bargaining agreements and further stated that the Associa-
tion would be happy to meet with Local 455 at an early
agreeable date. The list of membership in that notification
by the Association included, among others, all of the
named Respondent Employers in the instant proceeding.
There were 25 such Employers listed.
Thereafter, three or four bargaining sessions took place
during the month of June following the receipt by Local
455 from the Association of authorizations, in writing, from
each of the Employers who desired to have the Association
bargain on its behalf for a single associationwide contract
and a single associationwide unit of all production and
maintenance employees, including plant clericals. How-
ever, there were four Employers whose authorizations
Local 455 received, whom Local 455 protested, inasmuch
as Local 455 had already commenced bargaining individu-
ally with these four Employers before notification frcm the
Association or, at least, before authorizations were received
for these four Employers. These four Employers were
Balfour Door Co., Weatherguard Service, Inc., Esco Iron
Works, and Herbert A. Penner & Co., Inc. Accordingly,
Local 455 never conceded that these four Employers were
part of the Association for purposes of bargaining with
Local 455, and, eventually, Local 455 did enter into
separate agreements with these Employers.
As stated, during the month of June 1975 there were four
negotiating sessions. Despite the fact that at the very first
meeting, the date of which is not made clear in the record,
Local 455's representatives protested the appearance on the
Association's negotiating committee of Walter Balfour of
Balfour Door Co. with whom Local 455 contended it did
not have to deal as a member of the Association, after the
initial protest, which lasted but for a short time, Balfour
attended all four sessions as a member of the Association's
bargaining committee. During these four June 1975
bargaining meetings, the discussion, for the most part,
concerned some 56 differences between what the members
of the Association had received as independent contracting
parties in the expiring contracts with Local 455 and what
Allied members had received in their associationwide
contract which also was due to expire on June 30, 1975. 4
Likewise, during that period of time, although the Union
did submit a proposed stipulation as its initial offer in
negotiation, such stipulation did not include any set figure
for wages or any dollar figure-for fringe benefits. Accord-
ing to Local 455's president, Colavito, whom I credit in this
instance, the entire first session was devoted to these 56
differences between the so-called independent contractors'
and Allied agreements and the desire of the Association to
acquire for its members the benefits contained in these 56
items which were part of the associationwide contract with
Allied. The other three bargaining meetings in June also
were concerned, in large measure, with this problem.
However, both parties seemed to have been adamant in
their positions with regard thereto, the Association repre-
sentatives desiring an outright grant of all these 56 points,
and the bargaining representatives, principally President
Colavito, of Local 455 desiring to discuss each one
separately and definitively. In any event, no agreement of
any substance was reached either with regard to these 56
items or to the Union's contract submission. As a result,
I From credited portions of the testimony of Joseph Colavito
267
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees of the Employers who were members of the
Association, and of all other nonmember employers whose
contracts expired on June 30 stopped work and went out
on strike. Thus, there was a general strike throughout the
entire industry against all employers, regardless of their
affiliation or nonaffiliation with multiemployer bargaining
associations who had not signed contracts with Local 455
and whose employees were represented by that labor
organization.
For reasons best known to the parties, but not explained
in the record, there were no bargaining meetings during the
month of July 1975.
However, almost immediately after the beginning of the
strike, Local 455 circulated a modification of its original
demands to all of the employers in the industry, even
including some of the members of Allied. In late August
1975, at the first meeting after the strike began, the revised
proposal was given to the Association's representatives. It
is probable, however, that members and officials of the
Association were aware of this revised proposal before that
meeting. It was the first submission by the Union, although
only in a short stipulation form, which contained exact
wage proposals by Local 455 inasmuch as it modified
section 24 of the expired contracts to present wage
increases of approximately 10 percent for most of the
classifications of employees included in the multiemployer
production and maintenance unit of the employees of
members of the Association. Additionally, there were other
modifications from the original June demand.5
It should be noted further that although Local 455's
original proposal in June did not contain specific wage
demands, or specifics for welfare fund or other fringe
benefit contributions, according to credited testimony of
Colavito, Local 455 during the last meeting before the
strike did inform the Association's bargaining committee
that it was seeking a 15-percent wage increase from Allied.
Because of what had always been the custom of the
industry, this should have indicated to the Association's
negotiators that this percentage would be the maximum
increase which would be demanded of the Association
members. Additionally, at this same final meeting before
the strike, Local 455's representatives did inform the
Association's representatives that the fund increase de-
mands would be limited to a maximum of 5 percent.
In August, during the hiatus in bargaining between the
last meeting in June and the August meeting, a private
discussion was held at a hotel on Long Island between
Association President Spigner and Local 455 President
Colavito.
5 It serves no purpose at this juncture to recite these differences. It is
sufficient to note that Local 455 did move from its original position.
6 The record does not specifically state the exact order in which these
events occurred, except that Colavito indicated in his testimony, upon a
leading question by counsel for the General Counsel, that the meeting
between Colavito and Spigner took place on August 25. This would place it
about the same time as the Association's and Local 455's negotiating
session.
I I have credited Colavito's version of this conversation, not only by
reason of my observation of both Colavito and Spigner, but also because
Spigner, in testifying, specifically admitted that there was a discussion of the
Teamsters and also because he further stated in his testimony, while denying
the statements set forth above, that he did take umbrage with Colavito
However, before this meeting occurred, and probably
during the month of July, Spigner had a conversation with
a union business agent, Bill Matienzo, wherein Spigner told
Matienzo that the whole matter could be settled very easily
by Colavito on behalf of Local 455 by offering to the
Association the same terms which had been offered to
Allied. Spigner told Matienzo that this would create a
climate of settlement throughout the entire industry.
Matienzo then indicated that Colavito had told him that
the Association would be the "hard nut" in the settlement
of the entire matter. Spigner told Matienzo that this was
not so; that, in return for the Allied terms on the 50 or so
differences heretofore alluded to, the Association had at
the final meeting in June offered to Local 455 a substantial
increase in wages.
In any event, through the services of the New York State
Mediation Service, the August meeting took place. How-
ever, evidently, the meeting between Colavito and Spigner
occurred before that meeting.6 During that person-to-
person meeting, Spigner mentioned that one of the
Association members, Dextra Industries, Inc., had signed a
contract with the Union. The conversation became quite
heated at that point, Spigner telling Colavito that unless
Local 455 agreed to the Association's bargaining requests,
probably referring to the 50 some odd items, the Associa-
tion would have the Teamsters replace Local 455 and that
the Teamsters would, according to Colavito, "crack
heads." Spigner added that three of the members of the
Association were ready to sign up with the Teamsters,
probably referring to Local 810, the Charging Party in the
complaint against Local 455 in the instant proceeding.7
Although there might have been some slight errors of recall
with regard to exact language used by Spigner, I conclude
that, for the most part, the conversation during the meeting
was much as related above.
Although the Association spokesmen had insisted, in the
June 1975 meetings, before all else was discussed or agreed
upon, that Local 455 give them the 50-odd differences
between the Allied contract and what had before been
called the "independent" contracts, during the final June
meeting, they also demanded a reduction in wage rates and
reductions in contributions to the various funds and the
reduction of all benefits in addition to the changes of the
contract provisions which Local 455 considered objection-
able. Under these circumstances, at that last meeting, with
the Union insisting upon certain wage increases, the parties
were quite far apart. However, during the late August
negotiating session, which probably followed the private
discussion, as related above, between Colavito and Irving
Spigner, Local 455 set forth and sought to discuss in detail
concerning the fact that Local 455 had entered into direct negotiations with
Dextra. I also note, in not crediting Spigner, that the latter testified that
Colavito, during the conversation, brought up the matter of Local 810 or the
Teamsters. Spigner further testified that he did not know anything about
Local 810 or the Teamsters as such, or that the Teamsters had approached
any of the members of the Association. However, elsewhere in this Decision,
I find that labor counsel to the Association, not counsel representing the
Association in the instant proceeding, had spoken of the possibility of going
into another union and had, in fact, discussed Local 810 with the
Association members at meetings attended by Spigner. For these reasons, I
credit Colavito's versions of the conversation over Spigner's version and
Spigner's denials that he made threats to Colavito concerning Teamsters or
Local 810.
268
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
the proposal that it had circulated immediately after the
strike began to the independent employers who were not
members of the Association, but of which, the record
reflects, the Association members were apprised. However,
the modification and reduction in Local 455's wage
demands, and its suggestions regarding other matters, were
not sufficient to satisfy what the Association's representa-
tives considered necessary capitulation on the part of Local
455, and the meeting accomplished little or nothing.
However, inasmuch as this suggestion on the part of Local
455 was a move downward from its original position taken
at the close of the last meeting in June, I find and conclude
that at that point, if, indeed, the June meeting had ended in
impasse, such impasse was then broken and no longer
existed.
As a matter of fact, the record reveals no substantial
progress from that point on, including the parties' last
negotiating session sometime in January 1976 as hereafter
related. It is unclear from the record how many bargaining
sessions took place after the late August 1975 meeting until
that January 1976 meeting. Colavito testified, pursuant to
questioning by the General Counsel, that there were about
five and that these meetings were brought about and
attended by representatives of the New York State
Mediation Service. However, the record is not clear as to
what exchanges occurred at these meetings, nor does the
record show whether there was any movement from the
positions taken by the parties during the late August 1975
meeting.
In any event, by letter dated January 16, 1976, the
Association, over the signature of Association President
Irving D. Spigner, sent a letter addressed to John Zito,
secretary of Local 455, which read as follows: "The
executive officers of the companies named below, as
provided for in the bylaws of our Association, have
withdrawn any authorization previously given us, written,
oral or implied, which impowers the independent associa-
tion to engage in collective bargaining or conclude any
agreement on their behalf with Shopmen's Local Union
No. 455." The letter went on to list 19 individual
Employers who were withdrawing their authorization.
These Companies were, in order, Achilles Construction
Co., Inc., herein called Achilles; Bay Iron Works, Inc.,
herein called Bay; Esco Iron Works, Inc., herein called
Esco; Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron Works,
Inc., herein called Greenpoint; Heuser Iron Works, Inc.,
herein called Heuser; Ikenson Iron Works, Inc., herein
called Ikenson; Koenig Iron Works, Inc., herein called
Koenig; Kuno Steel Products Corp., herein called Kuno;
Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., herein called Long
Island; Master Iron Craft Corp., herein called Master;
Melto Metal Products Co., Inc., herein called Melto;
Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc., herein called Mohawk;
Paxton Metalcraft Corp., herein called Paxton; The Peele
Company, herein called Peele; Roman Iron Works, Inc.,
herein called Roman; Spigner and Sons Structural Steel
Co., Inc., herein called Spigner; Trojan Steel Corp., herein
called Trojan; Weatherguard Service, Inc., herein called
8 With regard to these Employers, Bay. Esco. and Weatherguard are not
mentioned as Respondents in this proceeding inasmuch as they signed
separate agreements, along with others, as hereinafter related, and were
Weatherguard; and G. Zaffino and Sons, Inc., herein
called Zaffino.8
In the letter's last paragraph, Spigner stated that the
Association no longer considered the named Employers to
be part of the bargaining group. However, significantly,
Spigner did not state that any employer whose name was
not listed in that letter was no longer a member of the
bargaining group nor did the letter state that the Associa-
tion was no longer bargaining, or could no longer bargain,
on behalf of its members who had not withdrawn.
In reply to the said letter, Colavito, on January 20, 1976,
wrote to the Association acknowledging receipt of the
January 16 letter, and stated, in his letter, that Local 455
entered into the agreement to bargain with the Association
for the Employers the Association represented, and that
there was no understanding that the arrangement was
unilateral, which would permit the Association members to
withdraw from multiemployer bargaining at any time
without the Union's consent. Colavito went on to state that
Local 455 must insist that any agreement between the
Association and Local 455 would be binding upon all those
Employers covered by the original agreement and that
bargaining in good faith be carried out by the Association
and its members. Colavito also stated that it was under-
stood by Local 455 that a meeting was to be set up at the
New York State Mediation Board on Friday, January 23,
1976.
This meeting was initiated by a telephone call from the
State Mediation Service stating that Dan Doyle, president
of Brakewell Steel Fabricators, Inc., herein called Brake-
well, desired the meeting. Brakewell had not withdrawn its
authorization. Doyle was also a member of the Associa-
tion's bargaining and negotiating committee from the
beginning.
The meeting took place, as scheduled, at the State
Mediation Service office on January 23. Present beside the
union representatives were Doyle, Seymour Kaplan,
president of Carlin Manufacturing Co., Inc., also one of the
original members of the Association, two of the Naiztat
brothers of Naiztat Iron Works, Inc., herein called Naiztat,
also original members of the Association. For Local 455
were Colavito and Kenneth Mannsman, a member of the
Local 455 Executive Board.
At the meeting, after a number of hours, an agreement
was ultimately reached with those present. During the
following weekend Bay Iron Works, Inc., signed the
agreement as did Wortman Iron Works, Inc. Accordingly,
five Employers signed the agreement. It should be noted
that Uydess, of Bay Iron Works, Inc., had also been on the
negotiating committee of the Association. It should also be
noted that all of these Companies who signed either on
January 23, 1976, or within a few days thereafter, as
hereinabove mentioned, signed their names as "Members
of the Association."
It should also be noted that at the meeting of January 14,
the last meeting held between the entire Association
bargaining committee and Local 455, the representatives of
the Association informed Colavito and other representa-
never considered by Local 455 as part of the Association. This is also true,
as noted above, of Balfour Door Co.
269
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tives of Local 455 that if the Association could be granted
the same contract which had been given to Allied shortly
before that time, and of which the Association was
apprised, the parties could probably reach an agreement.
However, Colavito and the representatives of Local 455
rejected this demand. It was thereafter that the Association
members met and a large majority decided that the
withdrawal letter of January 16 should be addressed to
Local 455.
However, as noted, although Bay Iron Works, Inc.,
withdrew and was included in the letter of withdrawal of
January 16, it joined in the negotiations held later in
January and was one of the five signers of the stipulation or
agreement on that date or soon thereafter. Additionally,
Respondent Heuser and Respondent Trojan, although
among the members who had withdrawn on January 16,
also eventually signed stipulations or agreements. Local
455 thereafter requested each of the other members of the
Association, who withdrew authorization, to sign and
honor the agreement reached with the original five signers,
but they had continued to refuse to do so up to the date of
the hearing herein, and have continued to refuse to meet
with and bargain with Local 455.9 It is apparent, that with
but, perhaps, a few minor variations the contracts which
were signed were virtually the same contracts which the
five original signers executed. However, the capacity in
which each Employer named above signed is discussed
later in this Decision.
Thus, the foregoing constitutes the situation with regard
to the bargaining as it is presented by the record herein.
C. The Local 810 Relationship with the Association
Reference has been made above to the fact that a labor
relations advisor, not counsel to Respondent Employers of
the Association in the instant proceeding, had spoken to
the members of the Association and others concerning the
fact that Local 810 and perhaps other unions might be
interested in representing the employees of the Association
members. This was brought about because of the apparent
disaffection of the Employers involved with Local 455. The
relationship between these individual Employers, Respon-
dents herein, and Local 455 over a period of some years
past had been deteriorating by reason, at least to some
extent, of the refusal by Local 455 to grant to these
independent Employers economic opportunities which
they believed would be as advantageous as those granted in
Local 455's negotiations over the period of years with the
members of Allied. It is well to note, although not as an
9 From testimony of Colavito and other union business agents. However,
it should be noted, that Respondent Heuser signed the stipulation only after
2 months subsequent to the signing by the others and after at least two visits
to Heuser by Union Business Agent Meyer Tessler. Tessler's testimony with
regard to that signing is credited.
°0 All of the foregoing with regard to the meetings with Brickman, and
with Dennis Silverman. constitutes an amalgam of the testimony of
Seymour Kaplan. who was treasurer of the Association at the time of the
events related and was an officer of Carlin Manufacturing Co., Inc.. one of
the original Employer-members of the Association, not a Respondent
herein, which company signed an agreement with the Union after January
16. 1976.
At the hearing herein, counsel for Association and Local 810 objected on
the basis of confidential communication to ';aplan's testimony with regard
excuse for what later took place among Respondent
Employers herein, that the building and construction
industry, during the period of time with which the facts of
this proceeding are concerned, was in a depressed state,
especially in the New York City area, and that a number of
firms had gone out of business. In fact, some Respondent
Employers herein had no working employees at the time of
the strike on June 30, 1975. For example, Respondent
Ikenson, which formerly had nine employees, had been
forced to lay off all its employees before the negotiations
involved in the instant proceeding began and, moreover, up
to the date of the hearing herein had not recovered
sufficiently to rehire any employees, inasmuch as that firm
was unable to procure any business. The same was
somewhat true of Respondent Spigner and Sons.
Thus, by reason of the foregoing pressures, the Associa-
tion, as representative of its members, retained a labor
relations expert, Attorney Herman Brickman, who has
been the arbitrator named in the labor contracts of
Employers in the industry whose employees were and are
represented by Local 810 and who had collective-bargain-
ing agreements with Local 810. At a meeting or, perhaps,
more than one meeting, subsequent to the beginning of the
strike, which meeting or meetings were attended by
members of the Association as labor relations clients of
Brickman and which meetings were also attended by other
independent employers who were not members of the
Association and not clients of Brickman, Brickman stated
that there were other unions interested in expanding their
membership among employees of employers in the indus-
try. This meeting, or meetings, took place some time in
October 1975. At one such meeting, Dennis Silverman,
president of Local 810, was invited to address those present
at the meeting. Silverman explained to those present the
terms that Local 810 could offer to the Employers, what it
could do for the employees, explaining the advantages that
Local 810 could give to the Employers involved relative to
pension plans, retirement plans, and other terms and
conditions of collective bargaining. This, of course, in point
of time, was approximately 2 to 3 months before the letter
of January 16 in which the Association informed Local 455
that a majority of its members were withdrawing their
authority to have the Association bargain on their behalf.
Additionally, at one of the so-called "open meetings," at
which others in addition to Brickman's clients were
present, Brickman stated that with regard to Local 810
progress was being made and that the men, presumably the
employees, were being contacted by Local 810.10
to what occurred at the meetings at which the members of the Association
were addressed by Attorney Brickman. However, the testimony hereinabove
related was permitted because the meetings at which this information was
set forth was attended by other than the members of the Association and
who were not clients of Brickman. Thus, in those instances, any claimed
attorney-client privilege was waived by reason of the fact that the meetings
were attended by others than clients of Brickman. Additionally, as will
hereinafter be related, at least some of the information at those meetings
related by the Association's attorney, Brickman, was advice tending to
inform the Association members that other unions were interested in
organizing their employees at a time when such employees were members of
Local 455. Accordingly, the advice that was given was related to, or could
have been the sparking point for, activity which in other parts of this
Decision is found to have constituted violations of Sec. 8(a)(2) of the Act.
270
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
Among other matters of which Brickman informed the
Employer Association members was that other labor
unions had no objection to organizing the employees of the
Association members. After a meeting with Brickman, Ed
Peele, chairman of the Association negotiating committee,
went to the office of Local 810 and obtained a copy of
Local 810's standard industry contract. Peele reviewed it
with Dan Doyle, another member of the negotiating
committee and, together, at a later meeting of the
Association, they informed the Association members
regarding the provisions of the sample Local 810 con-
tract.'
D. The Unlawful Assistance and Support of Local
810
It is evident from the record, as hereinafter related, that a
number of the members of the Association, despite the fact
that the vast majority of their employees joined the Local
455 strike on July 1, 1975, and remained loyal to Local 455,
made efforts to induce their employees to change their
allegiance from Local 455 to Local 810. In fact, some of
these Employers not only threatened to close their plants in
the event the employees did not become members of Local
810, but also executed a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 810 even before the January 16, 1976,
withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining. The activities
of these Employers in support of and in giving assistance to
Local 810 are set forth below.
1. Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural Iron
Works, Inc.
On or about Labor Day 1975, Greenpoint President
George Geuther, Jr., invited some of his picketing employ-
ees into the office of his plant and informed them that he
would have nothing further to do with Local 455 and if the
employees wanted to work for him they would have to do
so as members of Local 810. Geuther further informed his
employees that their pension contributions would travel
with them and they would lose nothing by transferring
their membership from Local 455 to Local 810. In fact,
Geuther repeated these statements to several of his
employees on a number of occasions between Labor Day
1975 and January 16, 1976, while the said employees were
visiting the Greenpoint plant as pickets on behalf of Local
455.
With regard to individual employees, Geuther told
employee Adam J. Gontorski that he had signed a contract
with Local 810. In December 1975, Geuther offered to take
Gontorski and other employees to Local 810's office. He
also stated that if they would not sign up with Local 810 he
would replace them with Local 810 members. Around
November I, employee Joseph Matzell received a regis-
tered letter from Greenpoint in which he was told to come
Inasmuch as the advice of the attorney would seem to have tended to
persuade the Employers to commit violations, it would seem that under the
common law rule as adopted in the new Federal Rules of Evidence. sec. 501.
effective July, I, 1975, Kaplan's testimony was admissible. It is well
established that at common law the attorney-client prvilege could not be
claimed where the advice of the attorney was to break the law in some
manner. It should be noted in connection with all of the foregoing, that
counsel for the Association and the Respondent Employers in this
proceeding is not Brickman and is not in any way associated with him.
back to work by November 10 or be discharged. In
January, Matzell did go back and was told by George
Geuther, Jr., that he had no job. During this period of time,
Geuther also stated to Matzell that he would never sign a
contract with Local 455. Employee Salvatore Gulino had a
number of conversations with George Geuther, Jr., in
September, October, November, and December 1975,
sometimes alone, and sometimes with other employees
present. Geuther always attempted to convince the em-
ployees and Gulino to change unions. When Gulino
refused saying that he did not want to lose his pension,
Geuther informed him that the law provided that the
pension would go with him. Geuther also offered Gulino a
10-percent increase in salary if the latter would join Local
810 and come back to work. Upon Gulino's repeated
refusals, Geuther told Gulino that the latter had better look
for another job.
In addition to Greenpoint employees, Frank Hernandez,
an Executive Board member of Local 455 visited Green-
point on November 10, 1975, along with a shop steward
named Sheeran from another Employer's shop. They
engaged George Geuther, Jr., in a conversation. Among the
statements made by Geuther to Hernandez and Sheeran
was that Geuther would never sign with Local 455 again
and that Greenpoint was not the only Employer thinking
the same way.
It is undisputed in the record that Greenpoint signed a
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 on Novem-
ber 20, 1975, and, presumably, has been operating its shop
under that contract continuously since then.12
2. Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc.
At the time the strike began, Respondent Long Island
employed seven workers, all of whom were members of
Local 455 and all of whom joined the strike on July i, 1975.
Sometime after the meetings of the Association with
Attorney Brickman and Local 810's president, Silverman,
Long Island's president, Irwin Davidson, in early Decem-
ber 1975, telephoned his seven striking employees and
invited them to meet with him at the company office. The
employees responded and met with Davidson and Long
Island's vice president, Nathan Steinfeld. Both Davidson
and Steinfeld, at the meeting, urged the employees to
abandon Local 455 and join Local 810 or, in the
alternative, go nonunion, assuring them that if they did so
they would have steady employment, but if they did not,
the Company would close its doors. Davidson further told
the gathered striking employees that a transfer of member-
ship to Local 810 would insure them of their pensions and
they would receive the moneys already paid into the Local
455 pension fund. Davidson also stated that Long Island
would never again sign with the Local 455. When employee
Michael Frenna expressed his disapproval and stated his
refusal to join Local 810, Davidson told Frenna, on two
" From the uncontroverted testimony of Peele.
12 From the uncontroverted testimony of the above-named employees. I
credit such testimony not only because it went uncontroverted on the record
but also because George Geuther, Jr., in testifying to other matters as
hereinafter related, did not in any manner deny any of the testimony of the
employees above or of Local 455 Executive Board member Hernandez.
271
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
separate occasions, that the latter had better look for
another job.
Approximately a month after the first meeting with the
employees, Davidson again called a meeting of the striking
employees and some of them attended. Again the employ-
ees were urged to join Local 810 and the same promises of
continued pension and vacation fund benefits were made
in the event that they transferred their allegiance to Local
810. Also, Davidson repeated the threats to close the
Company's doors if the employees did not conform with
his desires.
Despite the fact that none of its striking employees
consented to abandon their membership in Local 455, and
even before the second meeting with the striking employees
as set forth abyove, Long Island entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 810 on January 6, 1976,
which collective-bargaining agreement was executed by
President Irwin Davidson. Additionally, Davidson accom-
panied at least two employees to the Local 810 office in
Manhattan and remained present with them and partici-
pated while they were told by two apparent agents of Local
810 the benefits they would receive if they became
members of that Union.13
3. Master Iron Craft Corp.
In the middle of February 1976, striking employee
Morris Waldman went to the shop of Master Iron Craft
and spoke to Murray Scheiner, a partner in that firm, and
asked Scheiner for work. Scheiner refused, saying he could
not take Waldman back because Master Iron Craft
belonged to another union, Local 810. As a matter of fact,
Master d,,I sign a contract with Local 810 on January 28,
which bargaining agreement was signed on behalf of
Master Iron Craft by Scheiner. 14
., 4. Paxton Metalcraft
Antonio Monturo and Arturo Palazzo, both employees
of Paxton who struck on July 1, 1975, made attempts in
January 1976 to return to work at Paxton. Thus, in mid-
January, Monturo received a telephone call from Leo
Mayer, president of Paxton, to come down to the shop.
One day later, Monturo visited with Mayer at the shop.
Mayer asked Monturo to change unions and to come back
to work. Mayer told Monturo, when the latter demurred, to
think carefully, otherwise Monturo could be replaced
unless he changed his union affiliation to Local 810.
13 From the credited uncontested testimony of Long Island employees,
Harry Bender, James Flemming, Michael Frenna, and Erdin Dill. Although
Bender and other employees of other Respondent Employers, as hereinafter
related, were unable to identify by name the individuals who spoke to them
at various times at Local 810's office on 15th Street in Manhattan, from the
context in which these visits to the Local 810 office arose, and the timing of
the visits within a brief period after Local 810 President Silverman spoke at
the Association meeting, I infer that the individuals who spoke to the
various employees of a number of the Respondent Employers at Local 8 lO's
office were agents of that Union authorized to do so. It is unreasonable to
assume that the Respondent Employers' officials, who brought their
employees to Local 810's office, did so for the purpose of having the
employees meet some unauthorized clerk without knowledge of the Union's
operations, inasmuch as the individuals who addressed the various
employees explained in detail the operations and proposed union benefits
Palazzo, who needed work badly, on January 22, 1976,
knocked on Paxton's door. The door was opened by Leo
Mayer who invited Palazzo inside. Mayer informed
Palazzo that Local 455 was no longer the company union
and that Local 810 was the company union. He further
stated that if Palazzo came back to work, after I month,
Palazzo would be obligated to join Local 810. Mayer told
Palazzo that he had already signed a collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 810. The record actually shows that
on December 15, 1975, Paxton signed a collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Local 810 which agreement was signed
by Irving Melnick, Paxton's treasurer.' 5
5. Roma Iron Works, Inc.
Roma's president, Edward Romanelli, spoke to several
of his employees who were on strike upon a number of
occasions regarding Local 810. Of the nine employees who
went out on strike, four testified. Thus, in November 1975,
Romanelli called employee Lorenzo Ruggieri at the latter's
home and asked him to come to the company office.
Ruggieri complied and when he arrived at the office he
found present there Romanelli and Frank Carpentiere.
Although Roma is a corporation, it is evident that
Romanelli and Frank Carpentiere are partners. Also
present, besides Romanelli and Carpentiere, was an
unnamed bookkeeper. Romanelli and Carpentiere asked
Ruggieri to join Local 810, stating they could not afford to
stay with Local 455. They also informed Ruggieri that they
would close the shop rather than sign with Local 455 and
would never sign with Local 455. In January 1976,
Romanelli called Ruggieri again and similar conversation
occurred, both on the telephone and in the office.
Romanelli again urged Ruggieri to join Local 810 and
further stated that Roma would never sign with Local 455.
At that time, Romanelli also offered to have Ruggieri sign
a designation card for Local 810. When Ruggieri indicated
that he was not sure that he wanted to sign with Local 810,
Romanelli offered to take him down to the Local 810
office. Ruggieri consented. At the Local 810 office,
Ruggieri was introduced by Romanelli to a man he could
not describe. This man was not Union President Silverman.
In the discussion at the Local 810 office, with regard to the
benefits which Local 810 offered, Romanelli participated
and informed Ruggieri that the latter would take with him
into Local 810 all of the benefits he had accrued with Local
455.
Employee Alexander Farkas experienced a similar type
of inducement from Romanelli. During the summer of
which would enure to the employees if they became members of Local 810.
Additionally, some of the employees who testified, although unable to state
the names of the Local 810 officials who spoke to them, descnbed the
officials in some detail. Accordingly, I find and conclude that these
employees were addressed at the Local 810 office by union officials and
that, therefore, Local 810 did participate in seeking to induce the employees
to join that Union.
14 I credit Waldman's uncontroverted testimony in full. Murray
Scheiner, in testifying to other matters, did not deny the above.
15 All of the foregoing from the credited testimony of Monturo and
Palazzo. Although Mayer and Melnick both testified to other matters,
neither of them disputed any of the foregoing related by the two employees.
Additionally, with regard to the signing of the collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 810, the parties stipulated to that fact at the hearing.
272
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
1975, while Farkas was on picket duty at Roma's premises,
Edward Romanelli engaged him in conversation. During
that conversation, Farkas asked Romanelli to sign Local
455's proposed collective-bargaining agreement. Romanelli
answered that he wanted to "join" Local 810 and would
not sign with Local 455. At that time he showed Farkas a
"stipulation" from Local 810, which stipulation listed the
benefits the men would receive if they joined Local 810.
Romanelli assured Farkas that the latter would not lose
any benefits such as pension and vacation fund which
Farkas had already accrued under the Local 455 benefit's
plans. Again, in early January, Farkas heard that Allied,
the other collective-bargaining multiemployer association,
had signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
455. He thereupon proceeded to the shop to talk to
Romanelli and ask the latter if Roma would sign the same
agreement so that the men could return to work. Present
during that conversation were Carpentiere, Romanelli's
partner, and the same bookkeeper. Romanelli answered, in
short, that he would never sign with Local 455 and wanted
to join Local 810. However, so far as the record in the
present proceeding indicates, Roma did not sign with Local
810.
Michael Dynia, another employee, also had a similar
experience with Roma's president, Romanelli. In Novem-
ber 1975, Romanelli called Dynia at his home on the
telephone and asked if Dynia would like to sign a card and
join another union. Romanelli wanted Dynia to go to the
office where Romanelli would then drive him with others
to the other union's office. Dynia consented, went to
Roma's office and, with Romanelli driving, they proceeded
to the office of Local 810 on 15th Street in Manhattan.
During these conversations, Romanelli also told Dynia
that he would have to close the shop if Dynia stayed with
Local 455.
One other employee, Manuel Ruiz, while on the picket
line in July 1975, was approached by Romanelli who told
him, "If you guys keep striking with 455, I have to go out of
business." 16
6. Trojan Steel Corp.
At the end of August 1975, Arnold Feinglass, president
of Trojan, approached striking errployee Mario Plaza
while the latter was on the picket line and invited Plaza to
come back to work. Plaza, in effect, answered in the
negative, stating that he would not return until Feinglass
signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 455.
Feinglass then told Plaza that as long as the latter was a
member of Local 455 he would never be permitted to
return to work for Trojan. Feinglass further told Plaza that
Trojan would never sign a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 455.'17
However, despite the threats made by Feinglass, Trojan
signed with Local 455 as hereinafter related.
16 All of the above from uncontested testimony of employees Ruggieri,
Farkas, Dynia, and Ruiz. No official from Roma testified at the hearing.
Accordingly, the testimony of the employees being uncontroverted, it is
credited.
I" The testimony with regard to the threats and refusal to sign with Local
455 given by Plaza is credited in all respects. Although Feinglass denied that
he ever threatened any employee, he did admit that he might have told his
7. G. Zaffino and Sons, Inc.
Zaffino was evidently having financial difficulties even
before the strike started. It had laid off a number of
employees in the month of June 1975 and had, in fact, laid
off some employees as early as April of that year. Thus, for
a number of months, Zaffino had no contact with its
employees. However, in January 1976, probably during the
middle of the month, employees Junius M. Howell and
Joseph Riess, and probably other employees, were called
by Bruno Zaffino's secretary and asked to come to a
meeting at Zaffino's office. The meeting took place on a
Saturday. Bruno Zaffino told the employees attending the
meeting that Local 455 was "pushing him out, money wise"
and asked the employees to join Local 810. He told the
employees that if they would join Local 810, they would
retain their pension fund for retirement and a number of
other benefits. He further stated that he would have to
close up if he had to stay with Local 455, as it was costing
him too much money. Additionally, he showed Joseph
Riess, and the others, Local 810 literature (probably a
proposed collective-bargaining agreement) distributed to
the various employer-members of the Association by Local
810. Two days after that meeting, Bruno Zaffino again
called employee Howell on the telephone and asked him if
the latter would like to take a ride to the Local 810 office.
Howell answered that he would rather stay with Local 455.
Zaffino then told Howell, "You better watch your ass, we
are going to watch ours."
Shortly after that, probably within a few days, some of
the laid-off striking employees were gathered in front of the
home of employee Roger F. Williams in New Rochelle,
New York. With Williams were Robert Catalano, Joey
Zaffino, an employee although one of the Zaffino family,
and Joe Cassara. Bruno Zaffmo drove by, stopped, and
invited the employees to go with him to the Local 810
headquarters. Having nothing to do and being curious, the
employees accepted and were driven down to the Local 810
office on 15th Street in Manhattan. The Zaffino facility
was located in New Rochelle.
When they arrived at the Local 810 office, the employees
were taken into a large room and introduced to two men
whose names the witnesses could not recall. However, they
did describe, to some extent at least, one individual as
being a short, stocky man chewing a cigar, and with short
red hair. Local 810 representatives showed the employees
pamphlets containing Local 810's pension plans, vacation
plans, and other fringe benefits. There was further
discussion of other matters with which Local 810 was
interested with regard to Zaffino's employees. Finally, after
this discussion which lasted for some time, the men were
driven home by Bruno Zaffino.
It should be noted, however, that none of these
employees were told by Zaffino to join Local 810. He only
threatened that if the employees retained their membership
employees that he would never sign with Local 455. 1 credit Plaza over
Feinglass' denial not only by reason of my observation of these two
witnesses, but also by reason of the fact that Plaza has returned to work for
Trojan and, therefore, is more likely to have told the complete truth with
regard to the occurrences inasmuch as his employment with Feinglass
continues.
273
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Local 455, as noted above in his conversation with
employee Howell, that they would, inferentially, lose their
jobs.
At least one of the booklets which were shown to the
employees of Zaffino, while at the headquarters of Local
810, was a booklet entitled "Welfare Plan No. 45"
published by Local 810 and showing its address at 10 East
15th Street, New York, New York. It is unnecessary to
detail any of these welfare plans at this point inasmuch as it
would serve no purpose, but they run the gamut from a
dental plan to life insurance, to medical and surgical
benefits.
However, despite Zaffino's warnings, Zaffino never did
enter into any formal bargaining agreement with Local
810.
In connection with Zaffino, Bruno Zaffino testified that
although at one time, in the period before the events with
which this proceeding is concerned, he had been an officer
of Zaffino and Sons, he was at the times pertinent hereto
merely the office manager. It is presumed that this
testimony was presented for the purpose of showing that, in
any event, Bruno Zaffino had no authority to speak on
behalf of Zaffino and Sons and, furthermore, was not
authorized to take the employees down to Local 810's
office. However, it should be noted that at the Saturday
meeting with the employees which occurred in January
1976 other members of the Zaffino family were present,
and no one in that group told the employees that Bruno
Zaffino lacked the authority to do what he did. Nor did
they protest Bruno Zaffino's actions at any time and, in
fact, stood by while Bruno Zaffino acted as the company
spokesman.
Although Bruno Zaffino testified he did not invite the
men down to the Local 810 office but, rather, that he was
driving by and they volunteered without his asking to go
down to the office, I credit the testimony of the employees
that Bruno Zaffino did, indeed, invite and persuade the
individuals involved to go to Local 810's office with him.18
8. Other Employers who signed with Local 810
In addition to the foregoing, Respondent Employer
Melto, on December 22, 1975, entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement which was signed by Bernard
Liebman, president of Melto. On January 9, 1976, Mohawk
signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 by
Warren Reis, president. On January 30, 1976, Koenig
signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 by
Sol Leistner, president. On February 17, 1976, Cervenka
signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810
signed by George Cervenka, presumably the president.
Received in evidence, additionally, is a collective-bargain-
ing agreement between Roman (not to be confused with
is All of the above testimony of the employees of Zaffino whose names
are set forth above is hereby credited over the denial of Bruno Zaffino. I
especially observed Bruno Zaffino's attitude as he testified and am
convinced from his demeanor on the witness stand that he was less than
candid, especially with regard to the denials that he invited the employees
down to the Local 810 office. Accordingly, where Zaffino's testimony is in
conflict with the testimony of the employees of Zaffino and Sons, I credit
the employees' testimony over that of Zaffino.
19 Although the complaint herein alleges that Respondent Employers
Trojan and Roma entered into collective-bargaining agreements with Local
Roma) which was executed on November 18, 1975,
between Roman and Local 810. It was stipulated at the
hearing herein that all of the collective-bargaining agree-
ments entered into between Respondent Employers who
signed with Local 810 are virtually identical and that the
grievance and arbitration provisions contained therein
name Attorney Harry Brickman as the arbitrator with
regard to matters arising out of and pursuant to the said
collective-bargaining agreements.
It was further stipulated that in the case of Koenig there
are six additional signatures affixed in addition to the
president of that Company. These were probably all
employees of Koenig at the time the agreement was
executed and, further, were all employees of Koenig before
the strike began at which time they were members of Local
455. Further, with respect to Respondent Employer
Mohawk, the contract bears two additional signatures to
that of the president of Mohawk. There is nothing in the
record to show who these individuals were, but presumably
they were employees of Mohawk at the time of the signing.
It should also be noted that all of the agreements, in
addition to being identical in other respects, have the same
expiration date, October 5, 1978.19
9. Conclusions with regard to assistance
There can be no doubt, and I so find, that the attempted
inducement by Respondents Greenpoint, Long Island,
Master Iron Craft, Paxton, Roma, Trojan, and Zaffino to
have their employees join and become members of Local
810, and to abandon their affiliation with Local 455 and,
indeed, in some instances, to actually drive their employees
to Local 810's headquarters in order to further induce the
employees to join Local 810 and abandon Local 455,
constituted unlawful assistance and support to Local 810
and were undoubtedly violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (5) of the Act. Activity of this nature has long since
been held by the Board to constitute such violations.2 0 The
unlawful assistance and support of Local 810 is self-evident
from the recited facts. Additionally, the inducement to the
employees to join Local 810 and thus to abandon Local
455 constituted an undermining, or an attempt to under-
mine, Local 455 as the bargaining representative of these
Respondents' employees which activity clearly constitutes
violations of Section 8(aX)(5) of the Act.21 And this would
be true even assuming, arguendo, that Respondent Employ-
ers involved lawfully withdrew from multiemployer collec-
tive bargaining.
Additionally, the entering into collective-bargaining
agreements with Local 810 in the months of November and
December 1975, and January and February 1976 by
Respondent Employers Roman, Greenpoint, Paxton, Mel-
to, Long Island, Master Iron Craft, Mohawk, Koenig, and
810, there is no testimony or documentary evidence or any proof whatsoever
in the record that these Employers did enter into and recognize Local 810 as
bargaining representative of their employees. Accordingly, I shall dismiss
that portion of the complaint which alleges the execution of such agreements
with regard to these two Respondent Employers.
20 International Offset Corp., et al., 210 NLRB 854, 855-856 (1974);
Florida Automatic Sprinkler Contractors Association, et al., 199 NLRB 1151,
1158 (1972); Freeman G. Gaffney, Inc., 205 NLRB 1012, 1016-17 (1973);
Hopcon, Inc., 161 NLRB 31, 36-38, 41-43 (1966).
21 Supra.
274
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
Cervenka, constitute further violations of Section 8(aX)(),
(2), and (5) of the Act. As set forth earlier in this Decision,
these nine Employers were among those who joined the
Association which was formed in January 1975 and who
desired to bargain on an associationwide basis with Local
455. Inasmuch as all of these Employers had, as indepen-
dent companies, recognized and bargained with Local 455
for a number of years before the events herein, and because
the collective-bargaining agreements which they had
executed over the years with Local 455 contained union-
security provisions, when these Employers became mem-
bers of the Association and authorized associationwide
bargaining, the unit appropriate for collective bargaining
then became an associationwide unit and during the period
involved in this proceeding this associationwide unit was
presumptively intact. Therefore, Local 455 was entitled to a
continuing presumption of majority status in the associa-
tionwide unit. As hereinafter related, there is little or no
reason to conclude that the situation was otherwise at the
time of the execution by the above nine Respondent
Employers of the collective-bargaining agreements with
Local 810. Thus, the entering into the agreements with
Local 810 constituted unlawful assistance to Local 810 in
violation of Section 8(aXl) and Section 8(aX2) and (1) of
the Act, because Local 810, by reason of all of the
foregoing, did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
employees of Employers in the associationwide multiem-
ployer bargaining unit hereby found to be appropriate.
Additionally, the entering into the agreements with Local
810 constituted a further undermining of the collective-
bargaining position of Local 455 and, accordingly, consti-
tuted violations of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act.22
Over and above all of the foregoing, a reading of the
Roman agreement with Local 810 reveals that the said
agreement provides for union security to the extent that
employees encompassed by that agreement, which is
similar to the eight other agreements, must become and
remain members of Local 810. Because Local 810, at the
time of the entering into the agreement and at the time of
the hearing herein and by reason of findings and conclu-
sions set forth later in this Decision, did not represent an
uncoerced majority at the time of the entering into the
agreement covering some of the employees of the overall
multiemployer bargaining unit, the signing of union-securi-
ty agreements constituted further unlawful encouragement
of membership in, and support of, Local 810. This
constituted a violation of Section 8(aX3), (2), and (1) of the
Act.23
An attempt to justify the entering into the collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 810 was made on the
record by representatives of Koenig, Mohawk, Paxton, and
Master Iron Craft. According to Barry Leistner, vice
president of Koenig, none of Koenig's employees went out
on strike on July i, 1975, although, admittedly, they were
then dues-paying members of Local 455. Although pickets
appeared from time to time from July 1, 1975, until
22 See Florida Automatic Sprinkler Contractors Association, supra; Auto-
mated Business Systems, a Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc., a
Subsidiary of Littrron Industries, Inc., 205 NLRB 532, 534-535 (1973); Vegas
Vic, Inc., d/b/a Pioneer Club, 213 NLRB 841, 844-845 (1974); Beck
Engraving Co., Inc., 213 NLRB 53, 54-55 (1974); Sheridan Creations, Inc.,
148 NLRB 1503 (1964), enfd. 357 F.2d 245 (C.A. 2, 1966); International
sometime in January 1976, all of Koenig's six or seven
employees reported for work during that period. However,
in the latter part of January 1976 Koenig's employees went
out on strike. When Koenig's officials made inquiry, they
discovered that the men were on strike against Koenig for
the purpose of inducing recognition by Koenig of Local
810. It was after this that Koenig's president, Leistner, on
January 30, signed a collective-bargaining agreement on
behalf of Koenig with Local 810.
Respondent Mohawk's president and sole owner, War-
ren Reis, testified that at the time the strike began he had
approximately 10 employees. These employees who were
members of Local 455 at the time remained out on strike
until sometime in January 1976, approximately January 10.
At that time three employees asked to return to work and
Reis took back the three because his shop had been
inoperative from the date of the strike until that time. The
employees told Reis, when asking for work in January, that
they wanted to work with Local 810. At that time they
displayed to Reis union designation cards for Local 810.
Reis had made no contact with Local 810 until that point
in time. In fact, Reis testified that he never heard Local 810
mentioned at any of the association meetings which he
attended and certainly he had never met or heard of
Silverman, president of Local 810. However, after the three
employees displayed the Local 810 cards, Reis went to
Local 810's office and spoke to Silverman. Silverman
showed him the collective-bargaining agreement that Local
810 wanted Reis to sign. Accordingly, on that day Reis
signed the contract with Local 810 and the employees
subsequently returned to work. After that date, further
employees were hired, but there is nothing in the record to
show whether they were Local 810 members or Local 455
members or nonunion employees.
With regard to Respondent Paxton, Irving Melnick,
secretary-treasurer, testified that in late November or early
December, after his employees who were members of Local
455 had gone out on strike on July 1, 1975, he was
approached by three employees. The employees showed
him Local 810 union designation cards. The employees
informed Melnick and Mayers, president of Paxton, that
they had spoken to a organizer from Local 810 and they
were interested in becoming part of the Local 810
organization. Melnick then asked the individuals if that
was what they really wanted. They answered in the
affirmative and that they had all signed cards. Melnick
then inspected the cards. The following day he received a
telephone call from President Dennis Silverman of Local
810 and, within a week thereafter, met with Silverman at
Local 810's headquarters in Manhattan. Silverman de-
scribed Local 810's activities and what they had to offer the
employees and, in fact, showed to Melnick copies of the
various plans and the prospective collective-bargaining
agreement. After studying the agreement, Melnick called
Mayers from the Local 810 office and they together
concluded that it would be a good arrangement for them to
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO [Bernhard-Alrmann Texas
Corp.] v. N.LRB., 366 U.S. 731 (1961); Wickes Corporation, Wickes
Manufactured Housing Division, 197 NLRB 860 (1972); Clement Brothers
Company, Inc., 165 NLRB 698, 699(1967).
23 Komatz Construction, Inc., 191 NLRB 846, 851 (1971); Interpace
Corporation, 189 NLRB 132, 138-139(1971).
275
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign the agreement. Accordingly, on that day an agreement
was signed as heretofore related. According to Melnick, he
had never been in contact with, nor had spoken to, any
Local 810 representative prior to the telephone call on the
day after his three employees had requested reemployment
and membership in Local 810.
Finally, Murray Scheiner, who identified himself only as
a partner of Master Iron Craft, but who signed a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 810 on January 28 as
president of that corporation, testified that, as of the day
the strike started, Master Craft had five employees.2 4 The
record does not show whether these five employees all
joined the strike, but, in any event, by late December and
early January three of these same employees were working
at Master. In January 1976, John Michelinos, a representa-
tive of Local 810, approached Scheiner and informed the
latter that a majority of Master's employees were represent-
ed by Local 810. Michelinos then showed Scheiner the
cards signed by the three employees. An appointment was
thereupon made and, as a result, Scheiner went to the
office of Local 810 President Dennis Silverman. This
meeting took place on January 30 and, at the end of the
meeting with Silverman, Scheiner signed an agreement
with Local 810. However, on cross-examination Scheiner
admitted that he had five employees working at the time of
the strike and an additional one in layoff status in addition
to Waldman who was on temporary leave of absence at the
time the strike began. None of these employees had quit or
had been discharged at the time of the signing of the
agreement with Local 810, so that, in fact, Local 810
represented only three out of seven Master employees, all
of whom were Local 455 members when the strike began.
The record shows that all of the members of the
Association, at the time the strike began, employed
individuals totaling approximately 250. The total number
of employees of Respondent Koenig, Mohawk, Paxton,
and Master together, at about the time they signed the
agreements with Local 810, was no more than 30
individuals. The Board has established, with court approv-
al, that where a multiemployer bargaining unit exists, and
such unit employees are represented by a lawfully designat-
ed or recognized bargaining representative, before any
employer can withdraw from the multiemployer associa-
tion whose employees constitute the said multiemployer
bargaining unit, and upon such withdrawal recognize
another union as the withdrawing employer's employees'
bargaining representative, such withdrawing employer,
once multiemployer bargaining has commenced, must have
a good-faith doubt as to the continued majority status of the
union bargaining with the multiemployer group. Any doubts as
to the withdrawing employer's own employees' continued
adherence to the first union is not sufficient to justify
recognition of the second union and such recognition is,
therefore, violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 25 For
reasons hereinafter explicated, I find that at the time of the
signing of the agreements by the Respondent Employers
24 These five did not include Morris Waldman who had been laid off
some time before and had asked for a voluntary leave of absence when he
was recalled in June 1975. Accordingly, he was not working when the strike
commenced.
25 See Beck Engraving Co., Inc., supra; Sheridan Creations, Inc., supra.
26 It should be noted that none of the other Respondents, aside from
with Local 810 the multiemployer bargaining unit was still
intact and, therefore, the change of allegiance of 30 out of
250 employees was not sufficient to support a good-faith
doubt as to the continued majority status of Local 455 as
the bargaining representative of the employees of the
members of the Association in the associationwide unit.26
E. Picket Line Activity and Other Alleged Unlawful
Activity of Local 455
At various times, most of them subsequent to the
withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining by the 17
Respondent Employers on January 16, 1976, there oc-
curred incidents at various Employers' establishments
which went beyond activity which the Board has held to be
lawful or excusable picket line conduct. Some of this
activity was alleged by the counsel for the General Counsel
to have violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Other,
similar conduct, although not alleged in the General
Counsel's complaint against Local 455, nevertheless is
alleged by Respondent Association and its members as
unprotected picket line activity.
By way of background of some of this activity, although
not alleged in the complaint as violations of the Act, in
April or May 1976, Ken Leistner, an employee of Koenig
Iron Works, and son of President Sol Leistner, who signed
a collective-bargaining agreement in January with Local
810, was met on a street corner near the entrance to the
Koenig shop by Local 455 Representative John Bell. After
they greeted each other, Bell told Kenneth Leistner that his
father, Sol, was in trouble, and Local 455 members who
were working would not be let back into Local 455 without
paying heavy fines. Bell stated that Local 455 was
following Koenig trucks and there were ways that these
trucks could be stopped. He then allegedly stated that there
was a strong chance that people could get hurt and trucks
destroyed but that none of this would happen if Koenig
signed up with Local 455. Bell told Kenneth Leistner that
the taking of such action was not up to him or to Local
455's president, Colavito, but he referred to some vague
committee which would decide upon whether to take such
action.27
On May 17, 1976, about 5:50 a.m., Ken Leistner and
employee Tom Rafferty were accosted by two men who
stood in front of the employees' door of the Koenig facility.
The spokesman for the two men was described by Leistner
as tall, blonde, and wearing a black beret. The man
wearing the beret asked where Leistner and Rafferty were
going. When Leistner answered "inside," the man in the
beret said, "You're not going inside, its a 455 shop, you're
on strike." Leistner answered that there must be a mistake
inasmuch as the shop was a Local 810 shop. With that, the
same man said that if Leistner and Rafferty went inside
they would get their "ass kicked." The two men then
attempted to block the door, but Rafferty and Leistner
walked between them and entered.
Koenig, Mohawk, Paxton, and Master, attempted to show during the
hearing employee majority support for Local 810 at the time they entered
into bargaining agreements with that Union.
27 The foregoing is merely recited as background but becomes somewhat
important in consideration of part of Respondent Association and its
members' defense in the refusal-to-bargain aspect of this proceeding.
276
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
After Ken Leistner entered the shop, he went to the
garage area and rolled up the garage entrance door which
opened onto the street directly in front of the Koenig shop
near the other door that Leistner and Rafferty had entered.
By that time, five or six individuals had gathered in front of
the shop and among them were John Bell and Kenneth
Mannsman, heretofore identified as a member of the Local
455 Executive Board. Although Leistner did not identify,
specifically, who made the remarks that followed, merely
referring to them as "they," it was stated by the individuals
picketing with Bell and Mannsman, and perhaps by one of
those two also, that they were not going to let any trucks
out; that this was a Local 455 shop and they would "kick
the shit" out of anyone trying to get into the shop. At that
point several employees from various other shops in the
area passed and they were stopped and threatened by the
pickets.
Approximately at 6:45 a.m. that day, Sol Leistner parked
his car on the street near the shop entrance. As he was
getting out of the car to enter the shop, the man in the
black beret asked him where he thought he was going. The
senior Leistner asked, "Who the hell are you?" To which
the man in the black beret answered, "You are not going
into the shop, its a 455 shop, you are on strike and you are
going to get your ass kicked if you try to enter." The senior
Leistner then addressed Bell and asked the latter what was
going on. Bell answered to the effect that this was "strike
time" and that no trucks would go in and no trucks would
go out.
Shortly thereafter another employee, Don Hammer,
came out of the subway, approached the entrance and was
given the same threats. When he attempted to enter the
shop, Bell and Mannsman blocked the doorway. However,
the employee managed to slip behind them and enter the
shop at the beckoning of Ken Leistner. Other employees
entering that morning experienced similar handling by
Bell, Mannsman, and the pickets. Among these employees
who sought to enter was one Christopher Brown. He tried
to enter the shop at approximately 7 a.m. when he saw a
group of men out in front with picket signs for Local 455.
As he entered the shop, or attempted to do so, Kenneth
Mannsman came up to him, asked him where he was going
and continuously stepped in front of Brown attempting to
prevent Brown's ingress to the shop. All the time that this
was occurring, Mannsman was calling Brown a scab.
When Brown asked why Mannsman was doing this, the
latter answered that he was from Local 455 and that they
had been picketing for 10 months. Brown answered that
this was a Local 810 shop; that Brown worked for Local
810, to which Mannsman answered that Local 810 were a
bunch of scabs. At that point, Mannsman made a gesture
with his mouth as though he were going to spit at Brown.
At this point Brown told Mannsman that he would knock
out the latter's teeth if he spit at Brown. With this threat,
Mannsman backed off and stated that there were ways of
25 From credited testimony of both Kenneth Leistner and Brown. In
other parts of this Decision, I may credit Mannsman. However, I do not
credit the denials of Mannsman with regard to this incident or his version of
the same. Although it may well be that there were some exaggerations in
Kenneth Leistner's testimony, I found Brown to be a most reliable witness
whose testimony was not altered in any substantial manner on cross-
handling "punks like you, we'll get you later, something
like that." 28
In another similar incident, shortly after Richard J.
Mason began employment with Respondent Employer
Greenpoint on February 23, 1976, he was called a scab by
John Bell who, at the same time spat in Mason's direction.
Also, about the same time while Mason was working with
another employee of Greenpoint named Charlie, Bell
called to Charlie and told the latter that he, Charlie, was
working for blood money. Additionally, according to
Mason, Bell said to Charlie or "Carl," as the latter was also
known, "23 years in the Union, you know better than that,
get out of there Carl, that is blood money."
In addition, Mason testified that at one time while he
was at work, a picket, or at least an individual whom
Mason assumed was connected with the Union, took a
picture of Mason while the latter was at work. Later in the
day, the same individual, Timothy Garner, took another
picture of an employee named Dennis when they went out
for coffee. Mason testified that when Garner :ook his
picture, at approximately the same moment, Tony Schifa-
no, a union official, was passing by in a red car. However,
there is nothing in the testimony to connect Schifano with
Garner or tending to show that Garner was taking the
picture at the request of Schifano or any other union
official.
In addition to all of the foregoing, another picket, who
had been name-calling, told Mason about the same time
that he should not be surprised to see the pickets at his
home. The next morning he observed some strangers across
the street from his home. They carried no picket signs and
Mason admitted that he had never seen these men before.
According to Mason, he notified the police and some ex-
Marine friends. When these friends appeared on the scene,
the individuals who had been across the street from
Mason's home disappeared.
I cite this testimony of Mason only for the purpose of
showing what the General Counsel has described as the
testimony to prove violations of Section 8(b)(X)(A) of the
Act. However, I find no reliable connection with Local 455
officials in any of the foregoing events involving Mason
and I shall dismiss all of the violations with regard to any
threats or other incidents which were alleged as violations
of Section 8(aX)(1) with relation to Greenpoint or employees
of Greenpoint.29
Additionally, counsel for Respondent Association of-
fered the testimony of George Geuther, Jr., president of
Greenpoint, to the effect that from the beginning of the
strike Greenpoint had suffered considerable damage to its
property caused by vandalism which in turn brought the
police down to the premises quite often. Geuther also
testified that the pickets would come down 20 or 30 at a
time and swear at Geuther and the men who were working.
They would also pound on the door. One day Schifano
approached the area where Geuther and his father were
working and told them that he did not want them to call
examination and conclude that his testimony lends credence to the
testimony of Kenneth Leistner. Bell did not testify.
29 The fact that Local 455 officials might have admitted picketing at the
home of officers of some of the companies involved herein does not prove
that Local 455 was engaged in the incident at Mason's home.
277
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the police about the pickets anymore. Schifano further
stated, according to Geuther, that he would give them good
reason to call the police if they did not stop. When Geuther
asked Schifano if that was a threat, Schifano answered
"yes" that it was a threat. To this Geuther said, "You're a
bigger fool than I thought you were." 30
Kenneth Mannsman, who has been mentioned hereto-
fore as a member of the Executive Board of Local 455, was
also involved in some events concerning Long Island Steel
Products Co., a Respondent Employer in this proceeding.
These events were alleged by the General Counsel to have
been violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) on the part of Local
455. Thus, on February 25, 1976, at approximately 2:30
p.m. on the afternoon of that day, Long Island President
Davidson, Vice President Steinfeld, and three employees
were leaving the Long Island premises in an automobile
through an alley leading from the premises to the street.
When they approached the sidewalk in order to cross it to
go out into the street, employee Michael Frenna, who was
then on the picket line, placed himself in front of the car.
At that time, another individual, Ted Lincke, approached
the car yelling obscenities and started taking pictures of the
employees in the back seat. At the same time some of the
other pickets began banging on the car. However, at that
point the police stepped in, the pickets dispersed, and the
car was permitted to proceed. Present during this entire
incident was Mannsman who stood toward the front of the
car a bit to the side. Mannsman made no effort to stop
what was going on and could observe Lincke taking
pictures of the men in the back seat. Mannsman made no
effort to move the pickets from in front of the vehicle or to
stop Lincke from taking the pictures.
On Saturday, January 31, an employee of a glass
company came to the premises of Long Island to repair
some of the windows which had been broken. When he was
finished working on a door window, this individual
returned to his automobile and started up his motor. At
that moment, Kenneth Mannsman stepped in front of the
repairman's car and prevented him from moving. The
individual seemed to be somewhat upset and came out of
the car with an iron bar in his hand. He returned to the
shop and Vice President Steinfeld of Long Island then
called the police. When the police arrived, Mannsman
removed himself from in front of the vehicle and the
repairman was able to leave.31
In addition to the foregoing, counsel for Respondent
Association and the individual Respondent Employers
offered certain testimony with regard to additional inci-
dents, not alleged as violations by the General Counsel, but
which were claimed to have constituted violence and
threats of violence and destruction of property at the
premises of Respondent Employers Paxton Metalcraft,
Mohawk Steel Fabricators, and Trojan Steel Corp. This
30 The foregoing is cited only in connection with the defense of
Respondent and is not recited as part of any testimony in support of the
g(b)( )(A) allegations of the complaint against Local 455.
31 The recitation with regard to the incidents concerning Mannsman at
Long Island Steel is adopted from the testimony of Long fsland President
Davidson and Vice President Steinfeld. Although there was some reference
to the fact that this employee who had come to repair the glass in the Long
Island door had threatened Mannsman with a hammer, I do not credit this
for reasons that I discredit other Mannsman statements. I therefore credit
the testimony of Davidson and Steinfeld whose testimony was straightfor-
ward and unaltered on cross-examination in respect to these incidents.
testimony was offered in support of Respondents' defense
and offered as reasons why, in any event, no bargaining
order against Respondent Employers or the Respondent
Association should be issued.
Paxton Metalcraft Corp.'s President, Leo Mayer, testi-
fied that at the outset of the strike he had three employees
in the plant, all of whom joined the strike. Among them
was Antonio Monturo, who, as noted above, was solicited
by Mayer and Vice President Melnick, to join Local 810,
but who refused to do so. According to President Mayer,
Monturo refused to return to work at Respondent's plant
because Monturo was threatened. Monturo explained to
Mayer, that he was afraid, not so much for himself, but for
his wife and kids because the Union knew his address and
at one time there were men brandishing baseball bats in
front of his house at 5 o'clock in the morning when he was
ready to leave for work.
It is significant to note, however, that Monturo testified
he refused to return to work because Paxton had refused to
sign a contract with Local 455 and that, in fact, at the time
that Mayer testified that Monturo was being threatened by
Local 455 Monturo was picketing the premises of Paxton
on behalf of Local 455. Thus, it is doubtful that the events
which both Mayer and Melnick testified to with regard to
the wrongful activity of the union representatives, as
hereinafter set forth, was entirely factual and, I conclude,
that there was involved in their testimony considerable
exaggeration.
Mayer thus testified that on a day shortly after the strike
began, the guard door in front of the entrance of the
Paxton premises was torn down and off its hinges. When
Mayer, who had observed all during the morning the
movements of the pickets, came outside, he saw John
Steinhauser, an admitted union official, immediately
outside the removed door. When Mayer asked Steinhauser
if he had any part in the removing of the door, Steinhauser
refused to answer. However, Mayer admitted, in testifying,
that he had not personally seen nor heard the door being
ripped off.
Mayer also testified to two further alleged incidents. He
testified that on one day when he opened the door of the
plant to permit his partner, Melnick, to enter with the
latter's car, Union Official Bell, who was standing 2 or 3
feet away from Mayer, tossed a lighted cigarette at Mayer
hitting him in the chin. This resulted in an injury for which
Mayer had to see a physician. Mayer further testified with
regard to Bell that Bell had threatened him, stating that
Bell was going to go to Old Tappan, where Mayer lived.
Mayer also testified to a rock-throwing incident in
which, allegedly, pickets were throwing rocks at Paxton
employee Caruso. When Mayer observed the rock-throw-
ing, he saw Bell throwing rocks up on the roof of the
premises at Caruso who was on the roof performing work
General Counsel also offered testimony with regard to events which
allegedly occurred at the premises of S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc. However,
although this alleged incident, among others, involved the alleged puncture
of a tire of a truck, there was no connection whatsoever between the Union
and the puncture of the tire. Furthermore, there was no testimony offered by
any witness that such witness actually saw the tire being punctured.
Accordingly, at the hearing herein, I dismissed that portion of the complaint
against Local 455. That dismissal is hereby reaffirmed.
278
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
for Paxton. However, when Mayer filed a complaint with
the police against Bell for the rock-throwing incident, Bell
counterclaimed with a complaint that Mayer had threat-
ened Bell with an iron pipe. Thereupon, the entire matter
seems to have been dropped.
Except for the alleged incident where the door of the
premises had been torn off, all of the other alleged
incidents, according to Mayer's own testimony, occurred
after Paxton had signed a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 810 and after Paxton had withdrawn from
multiemployer bargaining with Local 455. It should be
noted in connection with all of this that although Mayer's
partner, Melnick, testified he was not asked about any of
these incidents. His testimony was limited to the circum-
stances under which the collective bargaining with Local
810 was executed with one exception. He testified that he
did see Bell toss the cigarette at Mayer.
Thus, I find and conclude that Bell did commit the act of
throwing the cigarette into Mayer's face. However, I have
grave doubts as to the occurrence of the other incidents
insofar as the Union's responsibility is concerned. Futher-
more, by reason of the claim and counterclaim in the
alleged rock-throwing incident, I find and conclude that
there could have been a provocation on both sides and,
additionally, witnesses called by counsel for the General
Counsel testified that the rock-throwing was commenced
by Paxton employee Caruso throwing rocks down on the
pickets from the roof of the Paxton premises. I, therefore,
conclude that the evidence is insufficient to find that Bell,
or any other union representative, provoked the incident.
With regard to an alleged incident involving employee
Richard H. White of Mohawk Steel Fabricators, there is
nothing to connect this incident to the Union. According to
White, he was driving his car when another automobile
drove up alongside him and two men whom he described,
one of whom could possibly have been Union Business
Agent Tessler, told him that he had better watch himself
inasmuch as the same people who had committed certain
acts at Long Island Steel could possibly commit similar
acts against White. Evidently, White had been a Local 455
member but had returned to work for Mohawk. This
constituted the entire incident. Because of White's inability
to definitely identify Agent Tessler of Local 455 or connect
the incident directly with Local 455 and because the
incident occurred away from the Mohawk plant, it could
have been merely a warning given in a friendly manner.
This is so because, according to White, the individuals
stated that they were really not concerned inasmuch as
they were working.
We come finally to incidents occurring at the premises of
Trojan Steel Corp. and at alleged incidents occurring to
members of the Feinglass family which controls that
corporation.
The difficulties at the premises of Trojan Steel Corp.,
unlike the difficulties that occurred at other Respondent
Employers' premises, were of a more serious nature in
certain respects. Additionally, they occurred before the
withdrawal of the 17 Respondent Employers from multi-
employer bargaining on January 16, 1976. In fact, they
occurred in September and October 1975. It should be
noted, however, that the feeling of enmity which seemed to
have existed at Trojan between officials of Local 455 and
the pickets on the one hand and the Feinglasses, the family
which owned and controlled Trojan, on the other, could
have been exacerbated when a picket was hit, either
accidentally or purposely, by a truck driven by Arnold
Feinglass, president of Trojan, on or about October 10,
1975.
According to Stuart Feinglass, the son of Trojan
President Arnold Feinglass, and an employee of Trojan, on
or about September 30, 1975, and prior to that date, he had
been warned and threatened by pickets that if he continued
to work during the strike he would be injured and, perhaps,
killed. However, because of certain inconsistencies in
Stuart Feinglass' testimony on direct and on cross-exami-
nation, I conclude that, to a great extent at least, much of
Stuart Feinglass' testimony was exaggerated. He testified
that on September 30, 1975, or thereabout, some days after
the picketing of Trojan began and after there had been
some boos and other catcalls made by the pickets as Stuart
Feinglass and his brother-in-law, Jim Maisch, entered
Respondent's shop, a broadcasting company's representa-
tive came to the premises of Trojan located in a section of
the Bronx, New York City, and interviewed Mario Plaza,
the shop steward for Local 455 who was also on the picket
line on behalf of Local 455 and, also, possibly interviewed
Arnold Feinglass. On that day, most probably because of
the appearance of the broadcasting apparatus, a crowd
gathered which was larger than had normally been
picketing the Trojan premises. Present, also, at the
premises were John Steinhauser, a union business agent or
delegate of Local 455, and Tony Buffalino, another agent
or representative of that Union. According to Stuart
Feinglass, when the broadcasting reporters and interview-
ers were present, the pickets were shouting that they were
going to kill Stuart Feinglass. This is one of the instances
which I consider exaggerated in that I do not believe that
the pickets would have done so in the presence of the
broadcasting reporters. I believe such would have been
highly unlikely under the circumstances. Furthermore,
although, according to Stuart Feinglass, the pickets seemed
even angrier the next day, and the numbers increased to 50
to 60 on October 1, I conclude that this could also well be
an exaggeration because of the fact that on that date a
number of employees from other nearby metal plants, who
were also on strike as members of Local 455, but who were
not involved in the instant proceeding, became curious and
were drawn to the premises. In fact, they were not
picketing Trojan but were across the street. According to
Stuart Feinglass, Buffalino and Steinhauser were present
across the street and were wielding baseball bats. Arnold
Feinglass also testified to this. However, some doubt is
thrown upon any alleged using of baseball bats and threats
hurled at Trojan employees and the Feinglasses by the
striking employees and union representatives because
Stuart Feinglass admitted in testifying, as did Arnold
Feinglass, that on most occasions during this entire period
there were anywhere from 2 to 10 policemen at or near the
premises at almost all times and especially at times when
the Feinglasses were either entering or leaving the plant.
However, things began to turn truly ugly only after a
picket, Tobias Wolf, was hit by the rear of a truck driven
279
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Arnold Feinglass on October 10, 1975. That this
incident occurred there is no doubt, inasmuch as Arnold
Feinglass did not deny this incident in his testimony.
Sometimes Stuart Feinglass was followed by other cars
when he left the plant in the evening in his own car.
According to him, on one occasion not too long after the
foregoing incident, he was followed by a car driven by
Steinhauser who, after pulling alongside the car of Stuart
Feinglass attempted to cut off Feinglass' car as they
proceeded away from the plant. Also, a rock was hurled
from the Steinhauser car through the driver's side window
of Stuart Feinglass' automobile. The police, who were
escorting Feinglass at the time, gave chase and ultimately
arrested Steinhauser who was eventually convicted on two
misdemeanor charges. These charges involved the willful
destruction of property and the endangering of lives.
However, there occurred another incident the day after
Arnold Feinglass backed his truck into, and knocked
down, picket Tobias Wolf. On that day, as Arnold
Feinglass was standing in the garage door opening of the
Trojan premises, Steinhauser saw Arnold Feinglass and
came rushing at Feinglass. Feinglass, seeing Steinhauser
rushing at him, pulled down the garage door and as he did
so Steinhauser, according to both Arnold and Stuart
Feinglass, attempted to reach under the closing door and
grab at Arnold Feinglass' legs. It is true that at that point
Steinhauser was undoubtedly angry, but this anger could
well have been caused by the injury to Tobias Wolf on the
preceding day. While the behavior of Steinhauser at that
time is not excusable, nor should it be condoned, it was
certainly understandable. 3 2
Stuart Feinglass also testified that at one time while he
was approaching the plant, after calling to state that he was
coming in and that the door should be opened, his mother,
who acted as secretary to the Trojan firm, was standing at
the opened door for Stuart Feinglass to enter when
Steinhauser spat at her. However, it should be noted in
connection therewith, that when a coffee truck appeared
soon thereafter both Stuart and his mother came out and
had coffee and conversed with Steinhauser. Accordingly, I
conclude that the spitting incident did not actually occur,
at least not in the context in which Feinglass related.
In any event all of these events were over by the end of
October. The only truly violent incident was the breaking
of the glass in Stuart Feinglass' car by the throwing of a
rock from the car driven by Steinhauser. While this is an
unforgivable situation for which the Union must be held
somewhat responsible inasmuch as Steinhauser was a
union agent, there is no evidence whatsoever that Steinhau-
ser was ever instructed by anyone superior to him in the
Union to commit any violent, criminal act. Additionally,
although Trojan was one of the Employers who, on
January 16, did withdraw from multiemployer bargaining,
it is also equally true that it later signed an agreement with
Local 455 which agreement was basically the same as the
agreement signed by the five employer-members of the
Association who signed with Local 455 late in January
1976. Further, this agreement, which was entered into in
32 It should be noted in connection with this incident that although
Stuart Feinglass testified on direct evidence that Steinhauser grabbed his
father's legs, Arnold Feinglass testified that Steinhauser was not able to grab
April between Trojan and Local 455, contained certain
minor differences from the contract between the other
Employers who signed with Local 455. These differences
were provided to accommodate peculiar situations at
Trojan shop. Thus, even assuming the truth of the
testimony regarding incidents to which Arnold and Stuart
Feinglass testified, it would seem that these incidents did
not prevent Trojan from accepting Local 455's contract as
negotiated in January 1976. Accordingly, the incidents
which occurred could not have had a chilling effect upon
Trojan nor caused Trojan to be completely unwilling to do
business with Local 455. Moreover, inasmuch as these
incidents of violence occurred before Trojan's withdrawal
and almost 6 months before the signing of the collective-
bargaining agreement between Trojan and Local 455, it
cannot be said that Trojan was forced by these acts of
violence and alleged acts of violence into signing with
Local 455, or were forced to deal with Local 455 by any of
the actions of Local 455 or its representatives.
F. The Requests for Reinstatement
As heretofore set forth, on July 1, 1975, the employees of
the Respondent Employers who were members of Local
455 went out on strike. At that time, the strike was called
for the reason that no agreement had been reached
between the Association and Local 455 with regard to the
adoption of a renewed collective-bargaining agreement.
The former collective-bargaining agreements between the
individual Respondent Employers and Local 455 all
carried the same expiration date, June 30, 1975. According-
ly, when the strike was called and the Local 455 members
walked out on their respective Employers, the strike was
purely economic in nature. General Counsel contends and
claims that this strike was converted into an unfair labor
strike by various acts which he contends are, and were,
violations of the Act committed by the Association and its
members. Therefore, the employees who struck on July I
have become unfair labor practice strikers and are entitled
to reinstatement by reason of the unconditional request
made on their behalf by Local 455. Received in evidence is
the letter of request for reinstatement sent to the Associa-
tion's members by Colavito, as president of Local 455. It
was stipulated that this letter was sent by Financial
Secretary Zito, over the signature of Colavito, on or about
February 27 to 16, of the Respondent Employers, on
March I to 4 other Respondent Employers, and on March
3 to Respondent Employer Cervenka. It was further
stipulated that with regard to that letter delivery was
refused by Respondents Greenpoint, Melto, and Trojan.
With regard to Respondent Spigner and Sons, the letters
were sent, evidently, to a post office box but remained
unclaimed. The letters were all uniform and stated as
follows:
On behalf of your striking production and maintenance
employees, we repeat the request previously made that
they unconditionally return to work at their previous or
substantially similar jobs.
Arnold Feinglass' legs inasmuch as the door shut before Steinhauser could
do so.
280
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
Please advise us of the date and time that you desire
them to report to work.
At the same time, and at the same dates, Union
Financial Secretary Zito, over the signature of President
Colavito, sent another letter to the same Employers and in
the same manner. This letter was a second reply to the
withdrawal letter of January 16 from collective bargaining
by Respondent Employers, and also informed them that an
agreement was arrived at between Local 455 and the
Association which, of course, was referring to the agree-
ment made with the five Employers on January 23, 1976.
This letter stated, in substance, that Respondent Employ-
ers had agreed to bargain collectively with Local 455 on a
multiemployer basis and designated the Association to
represent them. The letter further went on to state that any
attempt to unilaterally withdraw would be improper and
unlawful. It then informed the addressees that on January
23, 1976, an agreement was arrived at between Local 455
and the Association and a copy of this agreement which
had been arrived at was enclosed. The letter ended with the
statement to the effect that Local 455 considered the
parties bound by the agreement and that the withdrawing
members of the Association implement the same forthwith.
Thus, there is presented for consideration hereinafter the
issue of whether the employees who went out on strike were
(a) unfair labor practice strikers as of the time the demand,
as noted above, was made for their unconditional reinstate-
ment, and (b) whether or not the letter requesting
reinstatement when considered in the context of all that
occurred was, in fact, unconditional.
G. Respondents' Defense and Discussion Thereof
Respondents contend that the withdrawals from multi-
employer collective bargaining on January 16, 1976, were
timely and proper and lawful under the Board law and
court decisions in view of the fact, as argued by Respon-
dents, that the parties had reached an impasse in bargain-
ing and that the circumstances surrounding that impasse
were such as to render lawful the withdrawals. In support
of this basic contention, aside from any question as to
whether an impasse did exist at the time of the withdrawal,
Respondents bolster their argument by pointing to the
8(bXl)(A) violations on the part of Local 455 and the
additional violence testified to at the hearing and as
heretofore cited; to the very severe economic recession
seriously affecting the economic well-being of the employ-
er-members of the Association, some of whom were
virtually without any source of business during the
prolonged strike, not only because of the strike, but also
because of the very serious lack of work in the entire
building and construction industry; the original claimed
reluctance of Local 455 to enter into multiemployer
bargaining and the activities of Local 455 thereafter which
indicated that Local 455 was seeking to destroy the
Association and to disrupt multiemployer bargaining; and
finally what Respondent claims to have been mere surface
bargaining on the part of Local 455 with the intention by
Local 455 not to reach an agreement with the Association
33 144 NLRB 1592 (1963).
a3 The cited case was denied enforcement upon other grounds, 500 F.2d
181 (C.A. 5. 1974).
as spokesman for the Association's members, but rather
with the purpose in view of ultimately entering into
separate agreements with the Association members, in
other words, a process of divide and conquer.
In addition to this basic contention and supporting
arguments, Respondents further contend that, in any
event, even assuming that the withdrawals were not timely
and the members of the Association are found to be
obligated to bargain on a multiemployer basis through the
Association with Local 455, the Association and its
members are not bound by the terms of the agreement
which was entered into on January 23, 1976. (Counsel for
the General Counsel contends this agreement is binding
upon all of the members of the Association; that all the
members of the Association must comply therewith and
adopt the same as their bargaining agreement with Local
455.) Finally, above and beyond all of the foregoing,
Respondents contend that pursuant to the theory of the
Board in the case of Herbert Bernstein, et al., a co-
partnership d/b/a Laura Modes Company, 33 should the
Association and its members be found to have violated
Section 8(aX5) of the Act, by reason of the violence and
threats of violence and destruction of property heretofore
set forth in this Decision, an order to bargain should not
issue.
By reason of these foregoing contentions it becomes
necessary to analyze, in the first instance, the bargaining
which occurred, as earlier in this Decision set forth, to
determine whether, in fact, an impasse existed. This is so
because the entire defense of Respondent with regard to
the "special or unusual circumstances" surrounding the
withdrawal falls by the wayside unless an impasse actually
existed at the time the attempted withdrawal was made on
January 16, 1976. Before doing so, however, it is well to
review, in brief, the cases which deal with withdrawal from
multiemployer bargaining once such bargaining has com-
menced. The leading case in this respect is the case of
Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388 (1958), in which the
Board held that where the multiemployer bargaining has
commenced, an employer may not withdraw from such
bargaining except by mutual consent or because of
"unusual circumstances." Another case relied on heavily
by both General Counsel and counsel for Respondent
Association and of the Respondent Employers which
further explicated the law of Retail Associates, supra, is the
case of Hi-Way Billboards, Inc., 206 NLRB 22 (1973). In
that case, the Board decided that impasse alone is
insufficient reason to permit withdrawal of an employer
from multiemployer bargaining once bargaining has
commenced.3 4 The Board in Hi-Way Billboards, supra,
stated that an example of the unusual circumstances which
would permit withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining
after impasse would be presented where the withdrawing
employer has been faced with dire economic circumstances
"in which the very existence of an employer as a viable
business entity has ceased or is about to cease." 35 Thus, in
one case the Board has held that an employer may
withdraw from multiemployer bargaining association after
negotiations with a union have begun or the employer is
35 Hi-Way Billboards, supra, 206 NLRB at 23.
281
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subject to extreme economic difficulties which result in
bankruptcy or an arrangement under the bankruptcy
laws3 6 or where an employer is faced with the eminent
prospect of such adverse economic conditions as would
require it to close its plant;37 or where the employer is
faced with the prospect of being forced out of business for
lack of qualified employees to do the job and the Union
refuses to assist the employer by providing replacements
for the employees the employer has lost.3 8
It should also be noted that in Hi-Way Billboards, Inc.,
supra, the Board also defined what it considered to be an
impasse in bargaining. The Board held that "a genuine
impasse in negotiations is synonymous with a deadlock:
the parties have discussed a subject or subjects in good
faith, and, despite their best efforts to achieve agreement
with respect to such, neither party is willing to move from
its respective position. When such a deadlock is reached
between the parties, the duty to bargain about the subject
matter of the impasse merely becomes dormant until
changed circumstances indicate that an agreement may be
possible. Once a genuine impasse is reached, the parties
can concurrently exert economic pressure on each other:
the union can call for a strike; the employer can engage in
a lockout, make unilateral changes in working conditions if
they are consistent with the offers the union has rejected, or
hire replacements to counter the loss of striking employ-
ees .... Thus, a genuine impasse is akin to a hiatus in
negotiations. In the overall ongoing process of collective
bargaining, it is merely a point at which the parties cease to
negotiate and often resort to forms of economic persuasion
to establish the primacy of their negotiating position ...
In short, a genuine impasse is not the end of collective
bargaining." 39
In support of their contention that the withdrawals or the
attempted withdrawals from multiemployer bargaining on
January 16, 1976, were lawful, Respondents rely, in part,
upon an administrative determination made by the
Regional Director for Region 2 of the Board in which the
Regional Director refused to issue a complaint upon a
charge filed by the Association against Local 455 for
negotiating separately with one of the original members of
the Association, Dextra Industries, Inc. The charge alleged
that Local 455 had refused to bargain with the Association
in that having negotiated and signed a separate collective-
bargaining agreement with Dextra, it sought, in effect, to
refuse to bargain with the Association as representative of
the members of the Association and, also, that Local 455
did so with full knowledge that Dextra withdrew untimely
from Association bargaining. Also, the charge alleged that
Local 455 had restrained and coerced the members of the
Association in the selection of their representative for the
purpose of bargaining. On November 21, 1975, the
Regional Director for Region 2 notified the Association, in
writing, that he refused to issue a complaint on the ground
that the investigation revealed no evidence that the Union
engaged in conduct designed to undermine the Association
and that, rather, the investigation revealed that Dextra
withdrew from the Association subsequent to the collapse
36 See U.S. Lingerie Corporation, 170 NLRB 750, 751 (1968).
37 See Spun-Jee Corp. and The James Textile Corp., 171 NLRB 557, 558
(1968).
of bargaining and chose to negotiate with the Union on an
individual basis. In the dismissal letter, the Regional
Director stated that impasse in bargaining had been
reached before Dextra withdrew and before Local 455
consented to such withdrawal and began to negotiate with
Dextra. The Association and its constituent members, who
are Respondents herein, contend that this was determina-
tive of the situation and that, therefore, an impasse existed
and, accordingly, the determination by the Regional
Director that an impasse existed was the law of the case
herein. Accordingly, Respondents argue, an impasse
having existed the question then remains as to whether
there were sufficient additional surrounding circumstances
unusual enough to find that the withdrawal of the named
individual Respondent Employers and the Association
from collective bargaining was timely and not violative of
the Act.
However, from the definition and the explanation of
impasse hereinabove cited, as it applies to multiemployer
bargaining, it is evident that after June 30, 1975, such
impasse was broken because Local 455 immediately after
the strike began circulating and presented to independent
iron construction companies copies of its changed proposal
and at the August 1975 meeting, admittedly called at the
behest of the Association, Local 455 formally presented its
revised proposal to the Association negotiators. This, of
course, ended the impasse and negotiations began anew.
Although the contract between Local 455 and Dextra was
executed after July I and after the impasse had been ended,
it must be assumed from the timing that the facts upon
which the Regional Director of Region 2 of the Board
based his dismissal of the charge filed by the Association
were facts relating to conditions as they existed on and
before June 30. Therefore, the withdrawal of Dextra and
the negotiating by Local 455 with Dextra was not unlawful
and could not be interpreted as being aimed at destroying
multiemployer bargaining.
It should be noted, additionally, that the administrative
determination by a Regional Director who acted in the
capacity of a representative of the General Counsel of the
Board cannot be binding upon the Board or upon me with
regard to the full determination of the instant case, not
only because the facts, as the Regional Director must have
known them, were different from the facts presented at the
hearing herein, but also because an administrative determi-
nation by a Regional Director, acting in his capacity as
representative and counsel for the General Counsel, is not
binding as a final determination upon the Board in the
event that a complaint is later issued by the same or other
Regional Director based upon a disagreement between the
same parties. Such administrative determination and
refusal to issue complaint is not res judicata, and is not
determinative of the facts in the instant proceeding.
Neither was the refusal of the United States district court
to enforce the 6-month resignation provision of the bylaws
of the Association against Dextra in any way binding upon
the determination of the issues in the current case.
38 Atlas Electrical Service Co., 176 NLRB 827, 830 (1969).
3 Citations omitted. See Hi-Way Billboards, 206 NLRB at 23.
282
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
Upon the refusal of the Regional Director of Region 2 to
issue a complaint as aforesaid and because the district
court refused to enforce the 6-month resignation provision
contained in the bylaws of the Association against Dextra,
the Association notified its members that it felt that it
could no longer require the members of the Association to
conduct their bargaining through the Association. How-
ever, the fact that the Association chose to put this
interpretation upon these two foregoing determinations
does not in and of itself excuse the withdrawal, months
later, from the associationwide bargaining of the individual
Respondent Employers.
As set forth earlier in this Decision, after the meeting in
late August between the Local 455 negotiators and
negotiators for the Association, there were several bargain-
ing sessions during the period from August to the end of
December 1975. While the record does not reveal, in detail,
what occurred at those bargaining meetings, it is apparent
that little or no progress was made toward reaching an
agreement. However, before the withdrawal, and shortly
after the end of the year 1975, Local 455 had signed a
collective-bargaining agreement with Allied, the other
multiemployer bargaining Association heretofore de-
scribed. Under these circumstances, Local 455 was in a
position to better inform, and produce for, the Association
negotiators more exact details as to what the contributions
to the various funds would be because the Allied contract
was historically the agreement which set the pattern for
funds contributions from Employers in the industry whose
employees were represented by Local 455. It was, therefore,
finally possible for Local 455 to present these final details
upon which negotiations could be furthered and upon
which ultimate settlement could possibly be reached.
Possibly as a result, on January 14, 1976, a negotiating
session took place between representatives of the Associa-
tion and Local 455. In the course of that meeting, Local
455 offered a reduction in its wage demand and the
Association made a counterproposal which was rejected by
the representatives of Local 455. However, although the
meeting ended without any agreement on many money
matters, the parties decided to once again make an attempt
to see if they could move from the respective figures upon
which they could not agree. Therefore, the meeting ended
with the understanding that further negotiations would
follow. However, only 2 days later, Irving Spigner,
president of the Association, wrote to Local 455 a letter in
which he set forth the decision of Respondent Employers
herein to withdraw authorization from the Association to
engage in collective bargaining or conclude any agreement
on their behalf with Local 455. Thus, I find and conclude
that upon the day that the withdrawal became effective,
January 16, 1976, by reason of what has heretofore been
recited with regard to the facts of the negotiations, and by
reason of Board decisions defining impasse and the effects
of the same as heretofore cited, that as of the date of
withdrawal no true impasse existed. There had been
movement at the last meeting held only 2 days prior to the
withdrawal and although no agreement was reached on
that day, when the parties parted they had agreed to meet
again. The fact that the members of the Association had,
by January 16, changed their minds about meeting again as
a multiemployer group for the purposes of bargaining did
not in any respect create an impasse where none had before
existed.
Turning now to the other contentions of Respondents
that unusual circumstances existed to warrant the with-
drawal from multiemployer bargaining, the first matter for
consideration would necessarily be Respondents' conten-
tion that from the very outset of the multiemployer
bargaining, indeed, before the bargaining even began,
Local 455 was not only reluctant to come to the bargaining
table with the Association to bargain or to negotiate on a
multiemployer basis but, in fact, set out to destroy and
divide the Association. In support of this contention,
Respondents argue that, even before the bargaining began,
Local 455 would not agree to include Employers Balfour
Door Co., Weatherguard Service, Inc., and Esco Iron
Works in the multiemployer bargaining group because
negotiations between these three individual Employers
with Local 455 had already begun.
However, while this may have represented a certain
stubbornness and, perhaps, reluctance on the part of Local
455 to accept the Association as the bargaining representa-
tive of these three companies, it fails as proof that Local
455 was unwilling to deal with the Association as
representative of the other employer-members of the
Association who had not begun bargaining with Local 455
on a single-employer basis. Nor does it constitute proof
that Local 455 embarked on a course of conduct designed
to destroy multiemployer bargaining through the Associa-
tion.
In further support of their contention that Local 455
sought to destroy associationwide bargaining, Respondents
also point out that during negotiations Local 455 signed
separate agreements with several members of the Associa-
tion who withdrew. However, so far as the record shows,
the withdrawals of those employer-members were volun-
tary and not as the result of any purposeful pressure by
Local 455. It would seem that those employer-members
who withdrew from multiemployer bargaining did so in
order to bargain on a separate individual basis with Local
455 possibly by reason of the fact that the strike was in
effect and was hurting their business. This is a normal
result of the economics of strikes. The prolonged bargain-
ing had failed to reach a point where agreement could be
effected at an early date and, accordingly, the Employers
who withdrew reached the conclusion that bargaining on a
single-employer basis with the consent of the Union would
be economically more feasible for them. Therefore, I find
and conclude that the fact that these withdrawals, although
due to union pressure in the sense that Local 455 and the
multiemployer bargaining negotiators had not reached
agreement, such pressure was not applied to any individual
Employer for the purpose of forcing such Employer out of
multiemployer bargaining. I find and conclude that it was
the economics of the situation which brought about
resignation from multiemployer bargaining by those
Employers who chose to bargain separately with Local 455
while the Association continued to bargain for its other
members.
Closely akin to the foregoing contention of Respondent
Association and its members is the further argument that
283
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the entire course of conduct starting with thenegotiating meetings which took place in June 1975 andcontinuing until the withdrawal by the named Respondents
on January 16, 1976, the Union engaged in surface
bargaining with the intention of never reaching anassociationwide agreement and with the further purpose ofarriving at agreement only with the members of theAssociation on an individual basis. However, analysis of
the bargaining meetings and the various proposals madeboth by Local 455 and the Association reveals that
although Local 455 may have engaged in what could betermed "hard bargaining," it did not engage in surface
bargaining for unlawful purposes, as contended by Re-spondent Employers and the Association. Thus, at the very
outset of the bargaining, Local 455 submitted a proposal
which was in all respects a complete collective-bargaining
agreement with two exceptions, the first being the absence
of a specific wage proposal and the second being that thecontributions to the various welfare funds were mentioned
but the dollar amounts thereof were left blank.
These extensive proposals for a new contract were barely
discussed at the first four bargaining sessions, all preceding
the strike, because the main subjects of discussion at thebehest of the representatives of the Association were theso-called 50-odd differences between the contracts that
were about to expire, to which the members of theAssociation were independently joined, and the agreement,
also about to expire between Local 455 and Allied. While itis true that Local 455's initial proposals did indicate that
Local 455 was desirous of a substantial wage increase forits members, the discussion at the four meetings which took
place before the strike was centered, for the most part,upon the 50-odd differences, except for the discussion onthe eve of the strike when the Association's representatives
stated that there would have to be a wage decrease foremployees of Association members in answer to Local 455
representative's disclosure that Local 455 was seeking a 15-percent wage increase from Allied. Additionally, at thatmeeting, Local 455 also informed the Association's repre-sentative that, in the main, the Allied contributions to thevarious funds would require an outside limit of a 5-percent
increase over what the members of the Association were
then paying under the expiring agreements. According toColavito, this was no different than what had been theexperience of the parties, individually, over the years inwhich the independent Employers, who were now members
of the Association, agreed to pay fund contributions equal
to that agreed upon between Local 455 and Allied.
Additionally, although wages were mentioned at themeeting, they were passed over because of the 50-odd
differences and Respondent Association did seem tochange its position and stated once Local 455 agreed to
4o It is not clear from the record whether the Association's proposal of a
wage increase as a quidpro quo for the 50-odd differences was made before
or after it proposed a wage decrease.
1 Colavito's testimony throughout the record (he reappeared on the
witness stand on a number of occasions) was not always as complete ascould be desired. He was in the habit of answering questions in a manner
not quite directed toward the questions, but, rather, toward what heassumed the question to be. Whether this was because he did not always
listen, or whether it was a quirk in the manner in which he answered
questions regardless of their nature, cannot be resolved by me. However, inthe main, I find and conclude that Colavito attempted, in his own inimitable
give to them the 50-odd differences the Associationmembers, in return, would be willing to negotiate substan-
tial wage increases. 40As noted above, on July 1, 1975, Local 455 began
circulating a stipulation to independent industry compa-nies, not members of either Allied or the Association,
wherein it was specifically stated what Local 455 wasseeking by way of wages. This stipulation also contained aprovision that, as in the past, the negotiations with Alliedwould determine the funds contributions. Although this
proposed stipulation was not distributed to the Association
or its members at that time, it is difficult to believe thatnone of the members of the Association or the Associa-
tion's bargaining committee were aware of the terms ofthat stipulation. However, there is no indication in therecord that would definitely prove knowledge on the partof the individual members of the Association or theAssociation of the terms of that stipulation. The only
testimony in the record with regard thereto, as to theknowledge of the Association and its members at that time,
was Local 455 President Colavito's testimony that hebelieved that members of the Association had general
knowledge of this proposed agreement and the settlementswhich ensued therefrom. It should be noted, however, that
the amount of wage increase in that stipulation wasapproximately 65 cents per hour which was, according toColavito, less than the 15 percent which Local 455 hadinformed the Association's bargaining committee on June30 that Local 455 would require in any new agreement.
However, in any event, this was the offer made by Local455 and submitted at the meeting held between Local 455negotiators and Association negotiators late in August
1975. At that time, therefore, there can be no question that
full knowledge of the package requested by Local 455 with
regard to economic provisions was conveyed to theAssociation and its members. That this was not acceptable
to the Association members at that time does not constitute
evidence of bad-faith bargaining and perhaps not evenhard bargaining inasmuch as the 65 cents per hour wassomewhat of a retreat from the original 15-percent figure
mentioned on June 30.41
As a matter of fact, at least from the record, there was
some contradiction in what occurred even during the Junebargaining sessions which indicated that the Association
changed positions in such a manner as would indicate that
perhaps the Association itself was engaging in less thangood-faith bargaining. Thus, at one stage during these
negotiations, as mentioned above, the Association's repre-
sentative stated that they were willing to give a substantial
wage increase if the 50-odd differences were straightened
out. However, at the bargaining session on June 30, theposition of the Association's negotiators, after Local 455's
manner, to convey truthfully the events as they unfolded with regard to thenegotiations and the various conversations had between himself and
representatives of the Association or representatives of the individualemployer-members of the Association. Illustrative of this attempt byColavito to relate candidly what had occurred, his testimony with regard to
the emphasis in the June 1975 bargaining sessions upon the 50-odddifferences was supported by the testimony of Association President Spignerand Murray Scheinmer, president of Master Iron Craft, both of whomtestified that these 50-odd differences were very important to the employer-
members of Respondent Association from the very outset of the negotia-
tions.
284
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
representatives stated that they would discuss the 50-odd
differences separately, was that the Association's members
were looking forward to a reduction in wage rates and a
reduction in contribution to the funds.
At any rate, after discussion at the August 1975 meeting
of Local 455's complete proposal, no agreement was
reached and Respondents now claim that one of the basic
reasons was that Local 455 adamantly insisted that the
contributions to the various funds were to be tied to
whatever was ultimately agreed upon between Local 455
and Allied. Although few bargaining sessions were held
thereafter and were, for the most part, exercises in futility
insofar as reaching final agreement was concerned, there
was no indication that at any time during that period the
Association or members considered Local 455 to be
bargaining in bad faith. No charges were filed against
Local 455 during that period of time except in the Dextra
matter. Although this is not proof that Local 455 was not
engaging in bad-faith bargaining, it would indicate, at
least, that the Association, which was being advised by
Labor Relations Counsel Brickman during the entire
period of negotiations, did not see fit to file unfair labor
practice charges on the ground that it believed that Local
455 was bargaining in bad faith.
Ultimately, even during the bargaining that occurred on
January 14, 1976, which meeting concededly was brought
about through the good offices of the New York Mediation
Service, there was movement on the part of Local 455.
And, although the Association somewhat modified its
proposals at that meeting, and the Union rejected the
modified proposals, there was no indication that this
rejection, despite Respondents' arguments to the contrary,
was for the purpose of never reaching an agreement on a
multiemployer basis. While it may be true that if some of
Colavito's approach to bargaining and his attitude at the
bargaining table was as disconcerting and aggravating as
his manner of answering questions at the hearing herein,
and while it is further true that, had Local 455's representa-
tive been less unyielding, agreement might have been
reached, nevertheless, the attitude of Colavito and other
Local 455 representatives during the bargaining meetings
did not indicate that Local 455 did not intend to reach
agreement under any circumstances on a multiemployer
basis except on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That Local 455,
through Colavito, was willing to make further concessions
is indicated by the ultimate agreement reached with the 5
Employers who signed the stipulation dated January 23
after the withdrawal of the 17 other Association members
on January 16. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the
record does not substantiate a finding that Local 455
engaged in surface bargaining or failed to bargain in good
faith. While it might well be that Colavito and his
colleagues could have steered a more lenient course under
the circumstances in order to bring about agreement, it is
not within the Board's province or mine to make judgments
of substantive proposals. 42
2 N. L. R. B. v. A mencan National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395, 404 (1952).
43 It should be noted that, by the time Irving Spigner sent the letter of
January 16 withdrawing authority of the 19 Employers from the Association
to bargain for them, he was no longer associated with Spigner and Sons, Inc.
We come now to the contention of counsel for Respon-
dent Association and Respondent Employers to the effect
that the Employers who did not sign and who have
continuously refused to sign and join in the agreement
entered into between Local 455 and Carlin, Naiztat, Bay
Iron Works, Wortman Iron Works, and Brakewell Steel
Fabricators, Inc., on the dates between January 23, and 28,
1976, are not legally bound to do so because that contract
was ultimately negotiated and entered into between Local
455 and individuals not authorized to commit the members
of the Association to any agreement with Local 455.
The members of the Association's bargaining committee
during the entire course of bargaining until the letter dated
January 16, 1976, withdrawing authorization for 19
employer-members of the Association, were Spigner
himself, Edward Peele of the Peele Company, Murray
Scheiner of Master Iron Craft, Lawrence Uydess of Bay
Iron Works, and perhaps a few others from time to time
during the period of negotiations. Also, at most of the
bargaining sessions as an Association representative and
negotiator was Daniel Doyle, president of Brakewell Steel
Fabricators.4 3
As heretofore noted, at the meeting held by the
Association negotiators and the Union on January 14, 2
days before the so-called withdrawal letter of January 16,
1976, a further meeting of the parties was discussed and
agreed upon. However, the intervening withdrawal letter
seemed to have been sufficient to indicate that for all
intents and purposes that the meeting was not to be held.
There is no testimony, however, in the record which
indicated that Spigner as Association president, or anyone
else in authority for the Association, notified Colavito or
any Local 455 official that a meeting was not to be held on
the part of the nonwithdrawing members although no
specific date had been set for such meeting. However,
Daniel Doyle, of Brakewell and a member of the bargain-
ing committee of the Association, met several times with
Colavito because Doyle felt that perhaps it was Colavito,
himself, who was the stumbling block to progress and felt
that if he could straighten out some of the matters which
had caused the so-called withdrawal perhaps progress
could be made. But Doyle was not authorized in any
formal manner to speak for the Association and, in fact,
had not even informed Irving Spigner, the Association
president, that he was in contact with Colavito. During
these preliminary person-to-person discussions between
Doyle and Colavito some progress toward a meeting was
made and eventually, on January 23, a meeting was held at
the state mediation board between Colavito and Kenneth
Mannsman for Local 455 and Doyle, Seymour Kaplan of
Carlin, and the two Naiztat brothers from Naiztat Iron
Works. At the outset of the meeting, Doyle informed the
union representatives that the parties who were present,
although members of the Association, were representing
only their own companies and not the Association. In
connection therewith, Doyle specifically informed Colavito
and Mannsman that any authority he might have had in
However, he remained during the entire penod of time, and was still, at the
time of hearing herein, president of the Association which, in addition to its
negotiation functions, represented the members in other industrial matters.
285
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the past as a member of the negotiating committee for the
Association had been revoked, and that he and the others
who were present represented only their own companies.
Doyle further stated that any negotiations would be
conducted with that understanding. Colavito immediately
registered his objection to this arrangement and stated that
he had come to have a meeting with the Association and
that as far as he was concerned those individuals who were
present represented the Association. Colavito wanted to
know who had revoked Doyle's authority as a negotiator
for the Association. Doyle answered that the president of
the Association had done that and while Doyle had no
objection to proceeding with negotiating for his company,
because he wanted to resolve the strike situation, he could
not represent the Association. Finally, after Colavito and
Mannsman had left the room for a separate discussion, or
caucus by themselves, they returned and Colavito stated
that he was willing to proceed. At that point, Doyle again
reiterated his earlier position that the parties who were
members of the Association were there to speak for
themselves and not for the Association and again Colavito
said he could not accept that position. To this Doyle
answered that under those circumstances there was no
point in negotiating.
However, despite the protests by both parties with regard
to their differences in position, someone suggested that,
nevertheless, they go ahead and discuss the contract and
they did go over the proposed contract item by item. There
were individual differences among the Employers present
because of individual problems in their own shops which
were applicable only to their own situations. Nevertheless,
the discussion went along upon those matters on which
they could all mutually agree or in which they were all
mutually interested. Toward the end of the day, although
Colavito indicated that he was willing to sign, the others
stated that they had individual problems which were not
mutual in regard to all of the shops and that, therefore, it
would be a necessity to have separate meetings with
Colavito to iron out the individual problems as well as the
mutual matters on which they could all agree. These
problems, of course, which were applicable to the individu-
al shops were unique with those shops because of the
differences in the product which the shops produced and
also because of differences in the type of work that was
being done at the various shops.
Accordingly, the following Monday, there was a meeting
between Colavito, Doyle, and the representative of Wort-
man. Before that however, there was a meeting on
Saturday, January 24. For the Union, present were
Colavito and John Steinhauser, the business agent who had
serviced Doyle's shop, and who also serviced the Wortman
shop. Again the same discussion with regard to the
authority of the individuals to sign for the Association
arose and the same arguments took place with regard to
Local 455's stand that the Employers present would have
"4 All of the foregoing from testimony of Daniel Doyle as supported by
the testimony of Lawrence Uydess and Irving Spigner. Although Colavito
testified somewhat to the contrary, I find that in this instance, Colavito's
answers were not sufficiently definite with regard to the above meetings to
satisfactorily establish that the signatories to the contract dated January 23
understood they were signing on behalf of the Association or any members
of the Association. Although I have credited Colavito in other respects in
to sign for the Association if they came to an agreement.
Doyle and Wortman's position was that they could not sign
except as individuals.
Two days later, the original meeting which had been set
up for the following Monday was held at the Sheraton Inn
at LaGuardia Airport. Colavito was present with Manns-
man. Five companies' representatives were at the meeting
and they were again the representative of Wortman, Bay
Iron and the others who had been at the original meeting in
January between Doyle and Colavito. Again the discussion
as to the representative capacity of the individuals was
discussed, and again Colavito insisted that the individuals
sign as representatives of the Association. Again the
individuals stated that they could only negotiate and sign
for themselves and not as representatives of the Associa-
tion. However, despite this disagreement, the parties finally
did come to an agreement on most of the contract terms
and the stipulation dated January 23 was signed with each
individual Employer, namely Carlin by Kaplan, Naiztat by
Henry J. Naiztat, Bay Iron Works by Doyle, Wortman by
its representative. Under each signature they wrote the
words, "Member of the Association" upon the insistence of
Colavito. At no time either during the Friday, Saturday, or
Monday meetings did any Employer present state that he
had the authority to speak on behalf of or bind the entire
Association. This was definitely made clear to Colavito. It
should be noted that although the agreement is dated
January 23, 1976, the first signatures were actually placed
thereon on different dates. Doyle's company, Brakewell,
signed on January 28. Each of the signatories also ironed
out their individual shop differences because of problems
unique to their own shops. They all understood that this
was not part of the basic contract, but was, rather, by side
agreements. At the meeting at Brakewell on January 28,
when Doyle ultimately signed as president of Brakewell, he
again told Colavito that he wanted the latter to understand
that he was signing as a "Member of the Association" only
because Colavito insisted on it and because Doyle wanted
a contract for Brakewell Steel so Brakewell could get back
into production. He stated emphatically that he was not
signing for any other Employer, that he was not signing for
the Association, that he was signing merely for Brakewell.
To this, Colavito said nothing. However, it is evident that
he regarded the contract as the Association contract.44
The agreement that was arrived at and dated January 23,
1976, and which was signed by Brakewell, Carlin, Naiztat,
Bay Iron Works, and Wortman Iron Works, was later
adopted by two other employer-members of Respondent
Association who have signed duplicate stipulations. These
are Respondents Trojan and Heuser. These agreements are
all uniform in the main, although there are some differenc-
es with regard to certain language uniquely applicable to
the individual shops, which differences are contained in
separate stipulations. The uniformity of the agreements
would seem to indicate that the agreements were negotiat-
this Decision, I do not credit him with respect to this particular situation. To
the extent that I credit Colavito, or any other witness, in some respects, and
do not credit him, or any other witness, in any other respect, I do so upon
the evidentiary rule that it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of
a witness' testimony." N.LR.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d
749. 754 (C.A. 2, 1950).
286
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
ed and signed as agreements of the Association for and on
behalf of the Association, and that, therefore, the other
Respondent Employer members of the Association who
have not signed are obligated to sign and be bound by this
agreement. On the other hand, as counsel for the General
Counsel himself has pointed out, the record shows that, in
the past, it has been the practice, even before the formation
of the Association, for the independent Employers who are
now members of the Association to sign virtually similar
"independent agreements" except for differences uniquely
applicable to their own particular shops because of
differences either in operation or the type of product which
the particular shop was producing.
The fact that there is uniformity in the ultimate
stipulation signed by the seven or so shops does not in and
of itself support the General Counsel's contention that
these agreements were negotiated for and on behalf of the
Association and obligated all the Association members to
become parties thereto and to sign similar agreements. It is
true, as noted by counsel for the General Counsel, that if
the other members are not ordered to sign, this could
present problems for Local 455 with regard to negotiations
with the other members of the Association because Local
455 cannot retain credibility if it gives better terms to some
members than others. On the other hand, the fact cannot
be ignored that the Association members who did sign the
January 23, 1976, agreement as "Members of the Associa-
tion" did so at the insistence of Local 455, which never
consented to the withdrawal of the other Association
members from multiemployer bargaining. The issues
presented by these conflicting facts are discussed and
resolved in a further section of this Decision.
H. The "Laura Modes" Defense
Counsel for Respondent Association and its individual
members named as Respondents herein contend that even
assuming the Board would ordinarily, under the circum-
stances in this case, issue a bargaining order against the
Association and its members to bargain with Local 455, no
bargaining order should issue because of the violence,
threats of violence, and destruction of property claimed to
have been committed by officers and officials of Local 455
and that the precedent for the withholding of a bargaining
order in a case such as this, has been set by the Board in
the case of Herbert Bernstein, et al., a co-partnership d/b/a
Laura Modes Company, 144 NLRB 1592, 1596(1963).45
It is true that the conduct of Local 455, through some of
its agents, especially Mannsman and Bell, as heretofore
related, was far less than exemplary, and that the conduct
heretofore found to have been violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) on the part of Local 455 cannot be condoned.
However, the record does not show that Local 455 has
engaged in this type of conduct, historically, whenever its
demands during negotiations and during strikes have not
been met by Employers with whom it deals. Additionally,
there were also, originally, 31 Employers, as demonstrated
by the exhibits received in evidence herein, who authorized
the Association to bargain on their behalf. While it is true
45 See also Union Nacional de Trabajadores (The Carborundum Company
of Puerto Rico and Carborundum Caribbean. Inc.), 219 NLRB 862, 863-864
(1975); Allou Distriburors. Inc., 201 NLRB 47 (1973).
that some of these Employers, early in the game, dropped
by the wayside, and signed separate agreements with the
consent of Local 455, there were, throughout the entire
period from June 1975 until January 16, 1976, a minimum
of 23 Employers still negotiating, or at least still authoriz-
ing the Association to deal on their behalf. And it was not
until January 16 that 17 Employers withdrew their
bargaining authorizations from the Association.
However, as heretofore set forth, there were only six
employer members out of the total membership of the
Association who were, possibly, victims of any unlawful
activity which could possibly be the responsibility of Local
455. These were, as noted above, Koenig, Long Island,
Greenpoint, Paxton, Mohawk, and Trojan. And in the
cases of Paxton, Mohawk, and Trojan, there was no charge
or complaint filed with regard to any activity which could
be classified as violent.
I have heretofore set forth and found that the Union has
engaged in certain activity which is found to have been
violative with regard to the first three of the above-named
Employers. All of the violative conduct found with regard
to those three Employers, in sum, totaled the taking of
photographs of employees, the picketing of an employee's
home, threats of injury, blocking of ingress and egress from
a plant on one specific day with regard to Respondent
Employer Koenig and the same with Respondent-Employ-
er Long Island. The taking oft' the photographs was only
with regard to two of these Employers' strikebreaking
individuals whom they hired or had continued to work
after the strike.
Additionally, it should be noted that the conduct found
in those three matters to have been violative of Section
8(bX1)(A) of the Act was conduct which occurred only
after the withdrawal by the 17 Employers on January 16
from multiemployer bargaining. This withdrawal resulted
in a complete cessation, with but two exceptions, of
bargaining with Local 455 by the withdrawing members on
any basis, multiemployer or individual, whatsoever. Fur-
thermore, each of the three Respondent-Employers, whose
premises, officials or employees were victims of unlawful
union conduct, had engaged in pervasive unfair labor
practices including, among other things, the signing of
collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810 of the
Teamsters in the cases of Greenpoint and Long Island,
before these Employers had even withdrawn from multiem-
ployer bargaining, and in the case of Koenig soon
thereafter. With regard to the other three Respondent-
Employers whose plants were picketed and who suffered
some inconvenience and, perhaps, some minor injury to
person or to their property, such injury could not be, as
heretofore set forth, directly attributed to any policy on the
part of Local 455 to commit any such unlawful action, even
though that union must bear the responsibility.
Perhaps the most violent conduct on the part of union
officials or conduct by pickets in the presence of union
officials who made no effort to stop the pickets from their
activities was, if believed, at the premises and away from
the premises of Respondent-Employer Trojan. Again, the
actions of Union Representatives Steinhauser and Manns-
287
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man, if the testimony regarding such is accepted, is
certainly not to be condoned. It was, perhaps, as noted
above, caused by the striking with his truck by Trojan
President Feinglass of a picket lawfully picketing that
Respondent's premises. The reaction to that was, for the
most part, an almost instantaneous reaction provoked by
the violence, purposeful or not, committed by President
Feinglass. Additionally, in the case of Trojan, this activity
all took place months before the withdrawal. There was a
long period of quietus between that activity and the
withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining. Moreover,
Trojan could not have believed that this alleged unlawful
activity was quite as serious as the Feinglasses', father and
son, had testified, in view of the fact that Trojan ultimately,
voluntarily, came to Local 455's representative and
adopted the stipulation dated January 23, 1976, and is
currently under contract with Local 455.
Additionally, the fact cannot be ignored that only in a
very few instances was there any desertion from the ranks
of Local 455 into Local 810, or the crossing of picket lines
by Local 455 members. Large desertion from its ranks
could have indicated that Local 455 was using violence as a
strategem for forcing its members to maintain their loyalty
to Local 455. On an overall basis, however, considering the
total number of Employers and employees involved, the
activities heretofore found to have been either unlawful, or
violent but not alleged in the complaint against Local 455
issued by the General Counsel, were not very pervasive
when the entire record is considered. As noted, there is no
evidence that violence was a policy of Local 455 either in
the past or at the time of the events herein. Accordingly, it
cannot be concluded that the activity above-mentioned on
the part of some of Local 455's representatives, or on the
part of pickets at the various Emloyers' establishments,
constituted the type of pervasive, planned violence such as
has been held by the Board to warrant the withholding of a
bargaining order.?
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the possible
misconduct at six out of the total of the Respondent
Employers' plants, does not constitute evidence of a
deliberate plan or policy on the part of Local 455 by
intimidation or violence to insure to Local 455 continued
adherence by its members or to force the Employers or the
Association to capitulate to its demands. As pointed out by
the General Counsel in his brief, the strike was very
lengthy, the Employers involved, themselves, have commit-
ted grave unfair labor practices, as hereinafter discussed,
and yet, despite all of this, the vast majority of Local 455
members who went out on strike and picketed remained
loyal to Local 455.47
46 Union Nacional de Trabajadores, supra, A lou Distributors, Inc., supra;
Laura Modes Company, supra Counsel for the General Counsel advances
the argument that inasmuch as this was not an initial organizational
campaign, but rather a long drawn out strike and picketing with a union
which had for many years been the bargaining representative of the
Respondent-Employers' employees herein, this is a distinction between the
Laura Modes theory and the present case. However, I do not rely on this
contention as having validity inasmuch as it is a distinction without a
I. The Discharges and the Refusals To Reinstate
the Striking Employees
As recited earlier in this Decision, on two occasions
employee Michael Frenna of Long Island was told by Long
Island's president, Davidson, in an attempt to persuade
Frenna to join Local 810 that his job would be in jeopardy
unless he did so. Upon Frenna's refusal on both occasions
to accept or seek membership in Local 810 and after he
remained adamant in his adherence to Local 455, David-
son told him on both occasions that Frenna had better look
for another job. Additionally, Long Island's vice president,
Steinfeld, made a like threat when he told striking
employee Harry Bender that Long Island had signed a
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 and that
the striking employees were all out of jobs.
Virtually the same condition existed at Respondent
Greenpoint. There, George Geuther, Jr., informed striking
employee Joseph Matzell in September 1975 that if Matzell
did not join Local 810 he would have no job. Matzell
refused to join Local 810. Thereafter, some time either
before or after the withdrawal letter of January 16, Geuther
asked Matzell, who was then picketing, why the latter was
doing so inasmuch as he no longer worked for Greenpoint.
At approximately the same time Geuther said to employee
Gontorski when the latter refused to join Local 810 that
"I'm going to have to get men to work for me from 810 and
you won't have a job here no more." This clearly referred
not only to Gontorski and Matzell but to all of Green-
point's employees. It should be noted that Gontorski took
this to be a discharge and returned to Greenpoint in May
1976 for his tools and other personal belongings. At that
time he was not permitted to enter the shop. That it was the
intention of Geuther to discharge all of his employees is
better proven by uncontroverted testimony of employee
Salvatore Gulino upon his refusal to support Local 810. At
that time, Geuther told him, as he had told other
employees, that it was better if Gulino would look for
another job. Employee Stanley Sieminski also confirmed
this when he testified, credibly, that when all four of
Greenpoint's employees refused to join Local 810, they
were told by George Geuther, Jr., to look for new jobs.
However, it is not certain whether Greenpoint, after
sending its employees letters, despite all of the foregoing, in
late October 1975 stating that they should return to work
by November 10, 1975, or their jobs would be filled by
other personnel, ever did refill all their jobs. One employee,
Richard Mason, was hired on February 23, 1976, after
Greenpoint had committed other unfair labor practices. In
any event, there being no evidence that these employees
were replaced except for perhaps one of them, it would
seem that they are entitled to reinstatement either as
discharged employees or, as hereinafter set forth, as
employees for whom the Union offered to return to work
difference. Furthermore, in Union Nacional de Trabajadores, supra, the
pervasive violent activity had continued over a period of time and dunng
earlier organizing and bargaining periods.
47 See United Mineral & Chemical Corporation, 155 NLRB 1390 (1965),
which held that conduct similar to the conduct complained of by
Respondents herein, was basically conduct occurring in the "heat of picket
line tensions" and not part of a plan of intimidation.
288
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
unconditionally. By that time these employees had become
unfair labor practice strikers as hereinafter further detailed.
With regard to any other Employers, there is no direct
evidence of discharges. However, a review of the events as
they unfolded from June 30, 1975, until the request for
reinstatement of these employees by Colavito in February
1976, reveals that the strike which began on July 1, 1975,
was converted, at the latest, by January 16, 1976, to an
unfair labor strike with regard to every one of the named
Respondent Employers herein. It is unnecessary for me to
list all of these unfair labor practices, but among them were
threats of discharge, actual discharges, the unlawful signing
of collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810, the
general refusal to bargain arising out of the withdrawal for
multiemployer bargaining among other things. According-
ly, at the time the request of the Union over the signature
of Colavito on behalf of all the striking employees to
unconditionally return to work for their respective Employ-
ers was sent to Respondent Employers, these striking
employees were unfair labor strikers, the strike having been
converted by Respondents' unfair labor practices to an
unfair labor strike. Accordingly, the failure and refusal on
the part of Respondent Employers to reinstate these
employees up to and including the date of the hearing
herein and perhaps to the date of this Decision constitutes
further violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.48
J. Summary and Conclusions
The contentions and arguments in support thereof
presented by Respondent, while seeming, at first blush, to
have some merit, and which would, collectively, according
to Respondent, indicate that the withdrawal from the
multiemployer bargaining was timely and lawful, I find are
without merit in their totality.
It is quite true, and the record supports the factual
contention of Respondent Employers and the Association,
that the entire industry, of which the Association and its
members are part, has been suffering from the nationwide
recession and that a number of Respondent Employers are
having some financial difficulties. The statements and
testimony by officials of two of Respondents, Ikenson and
Spigner and Sons, that they have absolutely no business
whatsoever and have had no business whatsoever since
before the strike commenced, indicates that there is
certainly a precarious position with regard to the econom-
ics of at least two of Respondent Employers involved.
Nevertheless, with the exception of Respondent Employer
Ikenson, there has been no showing that any of these
Employers are in such condition that they are nearing
bankruptcy or that the Union is withholding employment
of its members from them. In fact, quite the contrary is
true. The Union has made an offer to return the striking
employee members of Local 455 to return to work
unconditionally so that there is no dearth of employees
whom Local 455 would supply who could perform work in
the various shops of their respective Employers.
Additionally, as noted above, there has not been a
refusal by Local 455 to bargain collectively with the
4x Although counsel for the General Counsel lists certain shops in which
there was evidence that they have not hired employees since the strike. I
nevertheless make no findings with regard thereto but will, in my
Association on a multiemployer basis but, rather, Local
455, as well as the Association and its members, have
engaged in hard bargaining which, up to the date of
January 16, the date of the withdrawal, has resulted in
failure to arrive at a collective-bargaining agreement. It is
unnecessary at this point to review the bargaining which
took place at the various negotiation meetings. I find and
conclude, however, that there has not been a failure on the
part of Local 455 to bargain in good faith.
Looking to other contentions which Respondent Associ-
ation and its members advance to seek to prove "unusual
circumstances" which would permit withdrawal from
multiemployer bargaining under Board and court prece-
dent, I do not find that the actions of the various officials
of Local 455, namely Mannsman, Bell, Matienzo, or others,
to have been so pervasive with regard to all of the
Employers involved as to constitute any further evidence
that the Union was seeking to (a) destroy the multiemploy-
er bargaining group or (b) cause the Board to withhold a
bargaining order in any event. Moreover, I do not find that
the so-called "hard bargaining" engaged in by Local 455,
or the bargaining by Local 455 with individual members
who dropped out of multiemployer bargaining with the
consent of that union constituted, in any respect, a
deliberate plan or policy of the Union to break up the
Association as a multiemployer bargaining group as
alleged and contended by Respondents. In fact, it is
doubtful that Local 455 was obliged, in the first instance, to
accept multiemployer bargaining. The record is devoid of
evidence that would indicate an intention to destroy
multiemployer bargaining once Local 455 accepted multi-
employer bargaining with the Association. Nor is it for the
Board to judge whether Colavito, Local 455 president,
acted wisely or pragmatically throughout the bargaining.
So long as the bargaining tactics in which Colavito engaged
did not constitute either a refusal to bargain or an attempt
to split, divide and conquer, the wisdom of such tactics is
not for the Board to judge.
With regard to the withdrawal, there is one item which
becomes necessary to finally discuss. It is true that under
the Board's original theory with regard to multiemployer
bargaining as set forth in the case of Retail Associates,
Inc.,4 9 consent is necessary to the formation of multiem-
ployer bargaining and is based at its inception on consent
of the employees, their employer and the union involved.
In the case at bar, it is possibly arguable that the
withdrawal on January 16, 1976, constituted a withdrawal
of such consent by the vast majority of the original
Employers who constituted the multiemployer bargaining
group. They having withdrawn from such multiemployer
bargaining, the bargaining group was by that withdrawal
completely destroyed because the consensual conception of
multiemployer bargaining was at the same time destroyed
for all practical purposes. However, considering the events
that preceded the withdrawal on January 16, 1976,
including the pervasive unfair labor practices engaged in
by the bulk of the Employers involved, the violations of
Section 8(a)(2) in assisting Local 810, the threats to
recommendations hereinafter set forth, leave that determination to be made
in any supplemental proceedings necessary to determine backpay.
4 120 NLRB 388 (1963).
289
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge and the discharges, and the other violations
heretofore found, the withdrawal of consent of a majority
of the Association members cannot be accepted as a reason
to permit such withdrawal and find the same to have been
lawful. To permit withdrawal, under such circumstances,
would be tantamount to creating a precedent whereby the
Board would permit withdrawal from and destruction of
multiemployer bargaining whenever the majority of a
multiemployer group does not get, through group negotia-
tions, what it is seeking by way of a collective-bargaining
agreement. This would not only be a dangerous precedent,
but would, in effect, result in rewarding employers such as
those in the case at bar for their own unfair labor practices.
It follows, therefore, that although the collective-bargain-
ing agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455
and the seven Employer-members of the Association was
agreed to by but a remnant of the total membership, it is,
nevertheless, binding on those who withdrew from multi-
employer bargaining. It is true that Doyle of Brakewell,
and the others who signed, repeatedly emphasized they
were signing for themselves only, and not on behalf of the
Association. But, Local 455 never consented to this, and its
insistence that the seven sign as "Members of the
Association" emphasized and established its refusal to
consent to either the withdrawals of January 16 or to the
seven signing only as unrepresented individuals.
While it might seem inequitable to force upon the
majority of the Association's members a contract to which
they did not consent, it cannot be denied that this situation
was the result of their own, unlawful, and untimely
withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining. If this result
seems harsh, the alternative, as stated above, would be to
reward them for their own unfair labor practices and to
place Local 455 in an awkward position of possibly having
to give better contract terms to some members of the
Association than others. This would destroy the concept of
multiemployer bargaining. Accordingly, the continuing
failure and refusal to sign the January 23, 1976, agreement
constitutes an additional unlawful refusal to bargain.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the withdrawal on
January 16, 1976, of the 17 Employers mentioned in the
letter of withdrawal of that date constituted and does still
constitute violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I
further find that the threats to discharge and the discharges
of the employees and the refusal to reinstate the unfair
labor practice strikers upon their unconditional offer to
return to work constitutes violations of Section 8(aX3) and
(1) of the Act. I further find and conclude that the
negotiation and signing of the collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Local 810 of the Teamsters and the urging and
the soliciting of membership in Local 810 by the Employers
involved constitutes, and still does continue to constitute,
violations of Section 8(aX2) and (1) of the Act. I also find
that on an overall basis, the conduct of Respondent
Employers herein and the Association constitute violations
of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act.
I base the foregoing findings upon all that I have set
forth heretofore. I further find and conclude that by
refusing to continue to bargain with Local 455 and thereby
violating Section 8(aX5) of the Act, Respondent-Associa-
tion and its members named as Respondent-Employers
herein have failed to bargain for a unit of their employees
which I find constitutes an appropriate unit for collective
bargaining as follows:
All production and maintenance employees, including
plant clerical employees, employed by the employer-
members of the Respondent Association, exclusive of
office clerical employees, superintendents, and all
supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
I further find, as hereinbefore set forth, that the conduct
of Local 455's representatives with regard to Employers
Koenig, Long Island Steel Products, and Greenpoint,
constitutes violations of Section 8(bX)(IXA) of the Act on
the part of Respondent Local No. 455.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTCES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of all Respondents, described in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the unfair labor
practices found above, have a close, intimate and substan-
tial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Association and Respondent Employers
named above, and each of them are Employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Local 455 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Local 810 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing plant clerical employees, employed by the employer-
members of Respondent Association, exclusive of office
clerical employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. Local 455 has been and is now the exclusive
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of
all of the employees of the unit described above in
paragraph 4.
6. The strike of the employer-members of Local 455 in
the unit above described, which began on or about July 1,
1975, as an economic strike, was converted to an unfair
labor practice strike by reason of the unfair labor practices
hereinafter recited, said conversion having occurred no
later than January 16, 1976. The strikers at that time
became unfair labor practice strikers entitled to all the
rights and privileges of such strikers.
7. By soliciting their employees to abandon Local 455
and urging and soliciting their employees to join Local 810,
Respondents Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc., Green-
point Ornamental and Structural Iron Works, Inc., Roma
Iron Works, Inc., Paxton Metalcraft Corp., Trojan Steel
Corp., G. Zaffino and Sons, Master Iron Craft Corp., S.
Cervenka and Sons, Inc., and Respondent Association
rendered and are rendering unlawful assistance and
290
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
support to a labor organization and are engaged and have
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
8. By threatening its employees with discharge and
other reprisals in order to induce them to support or join
Local 810 or to abandon Local 455 or to close its plant for
that purpose Respondent Employers Long Island, Green-
point, Roma, Trojan, and Zaffino have and are violating
Section 8(aX)( I) of the Act.
9. By refusing to recognize or bargain with Local 455 as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of the Respondent Employers in the aforesaid
unit of production and maintenance employees, Respon-
dent Employers have and are violating Section 8(aX)(5) and
(I) of the Act.
10. By discharging their employees in reprisal for their
employees' support of Local 455 and by failing and
refusing to reinstate their striking employees upon their
unconditional application for reinstatement, Respondent
Employers herein have violated Section 8(aX3 ) and (1) of
the Act.
11. By failing and refusing to sign the collective-
bargaining agreement entered into between Local 455 and
other Employers dated January 23, 1976, after withdrawing
from such multiemployer collective bargaining through the
Association, the Association and Respondent Employers
with the exception of Respondents Trojan and Heuser have
violated and are violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
12. By threatening to inflict physical harm on the
employees, by blocking ingress to Respondent Employers'
plants, by coercively photographing employees as they
cross the Local 455 picket line, Respondent Local 455 has
violated and is violating Section 8(bX)(1X)(A) of the Act.
13. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDIES
It having been found, as set forth above, that Respon-
dents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, set forth below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that
the Association and its members have failed and refused to
bargain with Local 455 in good faith as required by Section
8(aX5) and 8(d) of the Act, it will be ordered that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and to bargain with
Local 455 at reasonable times at the request of Local 455.
Additionally, it having been found that said Respondent
Employers have failed unlawfully to enter into the
collective-bargaining agreement entered into between
Local 455 and the seven other Employers, dated January
23, 1976, it will be ordered that said Respondents execute
such agreement.
50 At the hearing herein, it was credibly testified by representatives of
both Respondent Spigner and Sons and Respondent Ikenson that they have
not had any employees since the strike and are no longer in the business
which would require the use of members of Local 455. The order will be
applicable to them only if, as, and when they resume such operation.
15 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
It having been found that a number of Respondent
Employers have unlawfully recognized and entered into
collective-bargaining agreements with Local 810, in order
to restore the status quo, it is clear that an order should
issue rescinding the Local 810 contracts in their entirety. It
having been found that a number of Respondents have
coercively threatened their employees because of the
latter's adherence to Local 455 and in order to persuade
said employees to become members of Local 810, it will be
ordered that said Respondents cease and desist therefrom.
It having been found that certain of Respondents have
discouraged membership in Local 455 by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment of their employees,
it will be ordered that they cease and desist therefrom.
It having been found that the employees of Respondent
Employers who went out on strike on July 1, 1975, and
thereafter, have become unfair labor practice strikers by
reason of the unfair labor practices committed by the
various Respondent Employers, it will be recommended
that Respondents offer them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired on or after the
commission of the first unfair labor practices committed by
each individual Employer as the case may be. It having
been found that Local 455 made an unconditional offer on
behalf of all of its striking members who are employees of
the named Employers, the date of the unconditional offer
to return to work shall be the date on which backpay shall
be computed, and each Respondent shall make whole each
of the said strikers for any loss of earnings resulting from
the refusal by the individual Respondent Employers to
reinstate all the employees for whom the unconditional
offer to return to work was made, the loss of earnings to be
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner described by
the Board in F. W. Woolworth Conmpany, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962). 5°
It having been found that Local 455 has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(bX)XA) of the Act, it will be recommended that Local
455 cease and desist therefrom.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDER5 1
A. Respondent Association and Respondent Employ-
ers, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize or bargain with Local 455 as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of Respondent Employers in a unit consisting of
all production and maintenance employees, including plant
clerical employees, employed by the Employer-members of
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.
291
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Association, exclusive of office clerical em-
ployees, superintendents and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment.
(b) Discouraging membership in Local 455 or encourag-
ing membership in Local 810, or in any other labor
organization, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any other term or condition of
employment.
(c) In any other manner assisting or contributing
financial or other support to Local 810, or any other labor
organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. All of the Respondent Employers, with the exception
of Respondents Roma Iron Works, Inc., and S. Cervenka
and Sons, Inc., shall cease and desist from:
(a) Withdrawing or withholding authorization from the
Respondent Association to bargain collectively with Local
455 and to execute and administer an agreement on their
behalf with Local 455.
3. Respondent Employers, with the exception of Re-
spondents Trojan Steel Corp. and Heuser Iron Works, Inc.,
shall cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to sign or to give effect to the
collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, by
Local 455 and certain employer-members of the Associa-
tion.
(b) Failing or refusing to offer to all their employees who
engaged in a concerted work stoppage and a strike
commencing on or about July 1, 1975, immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if their jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of
employment, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
4. Respondents S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc., Koenig
Iron Works, Inc., Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural
Iron Works, Inc., Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc.,
Master Iron Craft Corp., Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc.,
Paxton Metalcraft, Corp., Melto Metal Products, Co., Inc.,
and Roman Iron Works, Inc., shall cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing Local 810 as the bargaining representa-
tive of any of their production and maintenance employ-
ees, unless and until said labor organizations shall have
been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as
the exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) Giving effect to their collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Local 810, or to any modification extension
supplemental renewal thereof, or to any superseding
contracts with Local 810, unless and until said organization
shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board.
5. Respondent Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc.,
shall cease and desist from:
(a) Urging or soliciting its employees to join Local 810 or
to abandon Local 455.
(b) Threatening to close its business unless its employees
abandon Local 455 or join Local 810.
(c) Informing its employees that it will never sign a
contract with Local 455.
(d) Offering its employees various improvements in their
working conditions in order to induce them to support and
join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455.
(e) Threatening its employees with discharge and other
reprisals in order to induce them to support or join Local
810 or to abandon Local 455.
(f) Urging or encouraging its employees to go to the
offices of Local 810, offering to transport them to said
offices, transporting them to Local 810 offices, or partici-
pating or remaining present at Local 810's offices as their
employees are asked to join or support Local 810 by an
agent of Local 810.
(g) Discouraging membership in Local 455 or encourag-
ing membership in Local 810 by discharging or otherwise
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any other term or condition of employment.
6. Respondent Greenpoint Ornamental Iron Works,
Inc., shall cease and desist therefrom:
(a) Warning or directing its employees to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of Local 455 or to refrain
from giving any assistance or support to Local 455.
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they become or remain members of Local 455 or
if they give any assistance or support to Local 455.
(c) Warning or advising its employees or employees of
other Employers engaged in commerce that it would never
sign a contract with Local 455 or that it would close its
plant before signing a contract with Local 455.
(d) Urging or encouraging its employees to go to Local
810's offices or offering to transport the said employees to
Local 810's offices.
(e) Urging or soliciting its employees to join Local 810 or
threatening them with discharge if they did not do so.
(f) Discouraging membership in Local 455 or encourag-
ing membership in Local 810 by discharging or otherwise
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any other term or condition of employment.
(g) Promising its employees improvements in their
working conditions to induce them to abandon Local 455
and to join and support Local 810.
7. Respondent Roma Iron Works, Inc., shall cease and
desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with discharge and plant
closure if its employees continued to support or assist
Local 455.
(b) Informing its employees that it intended to sign a
contract with Local 810, and would never sign a contract
with Local 455.
(c) Informing its employees that it wanted another union
because of the strike called by Local 455 or encouraging its
employees tojoin Local 810.
(d) Requesting its employees to accompany it to the
offices of Local 810, and accompanying them to Local
810's offices or remaining present as its employees are
asked to support or join Local 810 by an agent of Local
810.
8. Respondent Paxton Metalcraft Corp. shall cease and
desist from:
292
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
(a) Urging or encouraging its employees to support Local
810 or to abandon Local 455.
(b) Informing its employees it signed a contract with
Local 810 or that it will not deal with, recognize, bargain,
or sign a contract with Local 455.
9. Respondent Trojan Steel Corp. shall cease and desist
from:
(a) Threatening its employees with discharge unless they
abandon Local 455.
(b) Informing its employees it would never sign a
contract with Local 455.
10. Respondent G. Zaffino and Sons, Inc., shall cease
and desist from:
(a) Offering to transport its employees to the offices of
Local 810, transporting employees to the office of Local
810 or remaining present or participating when its
employees were asked to join or support Local 810 by
agents of Local 810.
(b) Threatening its employees with plant closure and
other reprisals unless they abandon Local 455 and join or
support Local 810.
(c) Urging or encouraging its employees to support or
join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455.
II. Respondent Master Iron Craft Corp. shall cease
and desist from:
(a) Informing its employees it cannot employ them unless
they abandon Local 455.
(b) Informing its employees it has ceased to recognize or
bargain with Local 455.
B. Respondent Association and Respondent Employ-
ers shall take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
I. Recognize and bargain collectively with Local 455,
upon request, as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative in a unit consisting of all production and
maintenance employees, including plant clerical employ-
ees, employed by the employer-members of the Respon-
dent Association, exclusive of all office clerical employees,
superintendents, and all supervisors as defined in Section
2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
2. Respondent Association and Respondent Employ-
ers, with the exception of Respondent Trojan Steel Corp.
and Respondent Heuser Iron Works, Inc., shall:
(a) Sign and give effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455 and
certain employer-members of the Respondent Association.
(b) Offer to all their employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike, commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs, or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
Additionally, they shall make whole their employees for
any loss of pay such employees may have suffered by
reason of the failure and refusal by the aforesaid Respon-
dents to reinstate them to their former jobs or substantially
*2 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notices reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
equivalent positions upon the employees' unconditional
offers to return to work. They shall make whole their
employees in the manner set forth in the portion of this
Decision entitled "The Remedies."
3. Respondent Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural
Iron Works, Inc., and Respondent Long Island Steel
Products Co., Inc., shall offer to the following employees
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if
their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions of employment, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges and shall make
whole the said employees named below for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedies:"
Michael Frenna
Joseph Matzell
Adam Gontorski
Stanley Sieminski
Salvatore Gulino
4. Respondents S. Cervenka and Sons, Inc., Koenig
Iron Works Inc., Greenpoint Ornamental and Structural
Iron Works, Inc., Long Island Steel Products Co., Inc.,
Master Iron Craft Corp., Mohawk Steel Fabricators, Inc.,
Paxton Metalcraft Corp., Melto Metal Products Co., Inc.,
and Roman Iron Works, Inc., shall reimburse all present
and former employees for all moneys unlawfully extracted
from the said employees for initiation fees, dues, and
assessments under their respective contracts with Local
810, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent
per annum.
5. All of the said Respondents shall, upon request,
make available to the Board or its agents for examination
and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records and reports, and all other reports necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under this Order.
6. Respondent Association and Respondent Employers
shall post at their places of business and plants located at
various places in New York City, and its environs, at places
where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies
of the attached notices marked "Appendix A-R." 52 Copies
of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, after being duly signed by the various
Respondents' representatives, shall be posted by Respon-
dents immediately upon receipt thereof and be retained by
them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents to insure that said materials are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
7. Respondent Association and each Respondent Em-
ployer shall separately notify the Regional Director for
Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps each Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein against
Respondent Association and the individual Respondent
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
293
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employers shall be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it
alleges violations of the Act not found herein.
C. The Respondent, Shopmen's Local Union No. 455,
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to inflict physical harm on employees of
members of the Association.
(b) Blocking ingress and egress at the plants and places
of business of members of the Association.
(c) Photographing employees of Employers of the
Association as the said employees crossed Respondent
Union's picket line in a manner so as to intimidate or have
the effect of intimidating said employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, coercing, or
restraining employees of members of the Association, or
any other employers, in violation of the said employees'
Section 7 rights.
2. Post at the offices of Local 455 and all other places
where notices to members are posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix S."53 Copies of said
notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Union's representatives, be posted by Respondent Union
immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by
Respondent Union 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 Union to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(a) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29 signed
copies of "Appendix S" for posting by the Employer-
members of the Association at their various places of
business. Said copies shall be duly signed by the Respon-
dent Union's representative and be forthwith turned to the
Regional Director for such posting.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Regional 29, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision as to
what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint against Local
455 be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act not found
herein.
53 See fn. 52, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of employees of the members of
our Association in a unit consisting of all production
and maintenance employees, including plant clerical
employees, employed by our Employer-members,
exclusive of office clerical employees, superintendents,
and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the
Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in said Local
455 or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys
and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local
810, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or in any other labor organization by
suggesting or instructing our Employer-members to
discriminate against their employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or give support to
said Local 810, or to any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any manner instruct or otherwise
encourage our Employer-members to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce their employees in the exercise of the
employees' rights under the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL recognize and bargain with Local 455,
upon request, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees of our Employer-members in the
above-described unit with regard to grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates, hours of employment or other
terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and instruct our Employer-members
to sign and give effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement dated January 23, 1976, between Local 455
and certain Employer-members of our Association.
WE WILL instruct our Employer-members to offer to
all their employees who engaged in a concerted work
stoppage and strike commencing on or about July 1,
1975, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and to
make whole their employees for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of their failure and refusal
to reinstate them to their former jobs or substantially
equivalent ones upon their unconditional offers to
return to work.
INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION
OF STEEL FABRICATORS,
INC.
APPENDIXES B-F
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
294
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455,
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
ACHILLES CONSTRUCTION
Co., INC.
IKENSON IRON WORKS, INC.
KUNO STEEL PRODUCTS
CORP.
THE PEELE COMPANY
SPIGNER AND SONS
STRUCTURAL STEEL Co.,
INC.
APPENDIX G
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining
representative of our employees in the unit above-
described unless and until Local 810 may be certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as the bargain-
ing representative of such employees.
295
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining
agreement entered into by us with Local 810 on
February 17, 1976, or to any modification, extension, or
renewal thereof, or to any superseding contracts with
Local 810, unless and until Local 810 may be certified
by the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative, of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
S. CERVENKA AND SONS,
INC.
APPENDIX H
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees in a unit consisting of all
production and maintenance employees, including
plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-
members of the Independent Association of Steel
Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical employees,
superintendents and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will
discharge them and close our plant if they continue to
support Local 455.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that we intend
to sign a contract with Local 810 or inform our
employees that we will never sign a contract with Local
455, nor will we tell our employees that we want
another union because of Local 455's strike, and
thereby encourage our employees to join Local 810.
WE WILL NOT further encourage our employees to
join Local 810 by asking them to go with us to the
Local 810 offices or remain present at such offices as a
Local 810 agent or officer asks our employees to join or
support Local 810.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
296
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
RoMA IRON WORKS, INC.
APPENDIX I
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
unless they give up their membership in Local 455.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will never
sign a contract with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
TROJAN STEEL CORP.
APPENDIX J
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents, and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
297
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
HEUSER IRON WORKS, INC.
APPENDIX K
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
*or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining
representative of our employees in the unit above-
described unless and until Local 810 is certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
bargaining representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT give any further effect to our
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 810 signed
by us on January 9, 1976, or to any modifications,
extension, supplement or renewal of that agreement,
unless and until Local 810 is certified by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
WE WILL reimburse all our present and former
employees for any initiation fees, dues, or any assess-
ments of any nature they may have paid to Local 810
pursuant to the terms of our unlawful contract with
Local 810, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, computed from the dates the said moneys were
paid to Local 810.
MOHAWK STEEL
FABRICATORS, INC.
KOENIO IRON WORKS, INC.
APPENDIX M
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
298
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees in
the unit above-described to support orjoin Local 810 or
to give up their membership in, or support of, Local
455.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we have signed
a contract with Local 810, or that we will not deal with,
recognize, bargain, or sign a contract with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining
representative of our employees in the unit described
above until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of our employees.
WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 810 which we signed
on December 5, 1975, or to any modification, exten-
sion, supplement, or renewal of that agreement, or any
superseding contracts with Local 810 unless and until
that union has been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
PAXTON METALCRAFT
CORP., DIVISION OF APEX
INDUSTRIES, INC.
APPENDIX N
NoTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees in the above-
described unit that we will not employ them unless they
give up their membership in or support of Local 455.
299
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we have ceased
to recognize or bargain with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining
representative of our employees in the above-described
unit unless and until Local 810 is certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 810 which we signed
on January 28, 1976, or to any modification, extension,
supplement or renewal of the agreement, or to any
superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and until
Local 810 is certified by the National Labor Realtions
Board.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
MASTER IRON CRAFT CORP.
APPENDIX O
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining
representative of our employees in the unit above-
described unless and until Local 810 is certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive
bargaining representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT give further effect to our collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 810 signed by us on
December 22, 1975, or to any modification, extension,
supplement or renewal of that agreement, unless and
until Local 810 is certified by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
300
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
MELTO METAL PRODUCTS
Co., INC.
ROMAN IRON WORKS, INC.
APPENDIX Q
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT urge or solicit our employees in the
unit described above to join Local 810 or to give up
their membership in, or support of, Local 455.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our business unless
our employees in the unit described above give up their
membership in and support of Local 455 or join Local
810.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will never
sign a contract with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT offer our employees, in the unit
described above, improvements in their working condi-
tions in order to induce these employees to support and
join Local 810 or to give up their membership in, or
support of, Local 455.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees, as described
above, that we will fire them or take any other action
detrimental to them in order to induce them to support
or join Local 810 or to give up their membership in, or
support of, Local 455.
WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees to go
to the offices of Local 810, or offer to take them to the
offices of Local 810, or take them to the Local 810
offices, or to remain with our employees in the Local
810 offices and participate with agents of Local 810 in
asking our said employees to join or support that union.
WE WILL NOT discourage memberhip in Local 810 by
firing or in any other way discriminating against our
employees in regard to hiring, laying off, or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1976,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining
representative of our employees in the unit described
above unless and until Local 810 has been certified as
such representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 810 which we signed
301
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on January 6, 1976, or to any modification, extension,
supplement or renewal of that agreement, or to any
superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and until
that union has been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to Michael Frenna immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
job without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and we will pay him for any loss of
wages he has suffered because of our discrimination
against him, such payment to be made with interest.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
WE WILL reimburse all our present and former
employees for any initiation fees, dues, or any assess-
ments of any nature they may have paid to Local 810
pursuant to the terms of our unlawful contract with
Local 810, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, computed from the dates the said moneys were
paid to Local 810.
LONG ISLAND STEEL
PRODUCTS CO., INC.
APPENDIX R
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Shopmen's Local Union No. 455, International Associ-
ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the Independent Association
of Steel Fabricators, Inc., exclusive of office clerical
employees, superintendents and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Steel, Metals, Alloys and
Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Local 810,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or in any other labor organization, by discriminating in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner assist or contribute
financial or other support to Local 810, or to any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT warn or direct our employees, in the
unit described above, not to join or remain members of
Local 455 or to stop giving assistance to or supporting
Local 455.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire our employees if they
join or remain members of, or support or assist Local
455.
WE WILL NOT warn or advise our employees, or the
employees of any other employer, that we will never
sign a contract with Local 455, or that we will close our
plant before we will sign a contract with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees to go
to the offices of Local 810, nor will we offer to transport
them to the Local 810 offices.
WE WILL NOT urge or ask our employees to join
Local 810 or threaten to fire them if they do not do so.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees improvements
in their working conditions in order to induce them to
give up their membership in, or support of, Local 455
and to join and support Local 810.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Local 810 by firing or
otherwise discriminating against our employees with
regard to hire, retention of jobs, layoffs, or any other
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Independent Association of Steel Fabricators,
Inc., to bargain collectively on our behalf with Local
455 or to execute and administer any agreement
reached on our behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, between Local 455 and certain members of the
Association.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
equivalent jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
302
INDEPENDENT ASSN. OF STEEL FABRICATORS, ET AL.
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 810 as the bargaining
representative of our employees, in the unit described
above, unless and until Local 810 has been certified as
such representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT give further effect to the collective-
bargaining agreements with Local 810 which we signed
on November 20, 1975, or to any modification,
extension, supplement, or renewal of that agreement, or
to any superseding contracts with Local 810, unless and
until that union has been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in a unit
consisting of all production and maintenance employ-
ees, including plant clerical employees, employed by
the Employer-members of the aforesaid Association,
exclusive of all office clerical employees, superinten-
dents and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act, with regard to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Association.
WE WILL offer to Joseph Matzel, Adam Gontorski,
and Stanley Sieminski immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent jobs
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and we will pay them for any loss of wages
they may have suffered because of our discrimination
against them, such payment to be made without
interest.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all the wages they
would have earned if we had reinstated them to their
former or substantially equivalent jobs when they or
Local 455, on their behalf, made an unconditional offer
to us to return to work.
WE WILL reimburse all our present and former
employees for any initiation fees, dues, or any assess-
ments of any nature they may have paid to Local 810
pursuant to the terms of our unlawful contract with
Local 810, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, computed from the dates the said moneys were
paid to Local 810.
GREENPOINT ORNAMENTAL
AND STRUCTURAL IRON
WORKS, INC.
APPENDIX S
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF TIHE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten to inflict physical harm on
employees of any Employer-member of Independent
Association of Steel Fabricators, Inc., to induce the
said employees not to cross our picket lines at the
plants, yards, or facilities of any of the said Employers.
WE WILL NOT picket at any of the above Employers'
plants, yards, or facilities in such a manner as to block
ingress into or egress out of those places in order to
prevent employees of the said Employers from crossing
our picket lines.
WE WILL NOT coercively take photographs of
employees of Employer-members of the said Associa-
tion in order to induce the employees not to cross our
picket lines.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
them by the National Labor Relations Act.
SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION
No. 455, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE,
STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON
WORKERS, AFL-CIO
APPENDIX T
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain with
Local 455 as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of the Respondent-Employ-
ers in a unit consisting of all production and mainte-
nance employees, including plant clerical employees,
employed by the Employer-members of the Respon-
dent-Association, exclusive of office clerical employees,
superintendents and all supervisors as defined in
Section 2(11) of the Act, with regard to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment, or other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 455
or encourage membership in Local 810, or in any other
labor organization, by discriminating in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any other term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner assist or
contribute financial or other support to Local 810, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw or withhold authorization
from the Respondent-Association to bargain collective-
303
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ly with Local 455 and to execute and administer an
agreement on their behalf with Local 455.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign or to give effect to
the collective-bargaining agreement dated January 23,
1976, by Local 455 and certain Employer-members of
the Association.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to offer to all our
employees who engaged in a concerted work stoppage
and a strike commencing on or about July 1, 1975,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions of employment, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL NOT offer to transport our employees to the
offices of Local 810, transport employees to the office
of Local 810 or remain present or participate when our
employees are asked to join or support Local 810 by
agents of Local 810.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant
closure and other reprisals unless they abandon Local
455 and join or support Local 810.
WE WILL NOT urge or encourage our employees to
support or join Local 810 or to abandon Local 455.
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 455, upon request, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative in a unit consisting of all
production and maintenance employees, including
plant clerical employees, employed by the Employer-
members of the Respondent-Association, exclusive of
all office clerical employees, superintendents, and all
supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 ) of the Act, with
regard to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment.
WE WILL sign and give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement dated January 23, 1976, between
Local 455 and certain Employer-members of the
Respondent-Association.
WE WILL offer to all our employees who engaged in a
concerted work stoppage and strike, commencing on or
about July 1, 1975, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL pay to our employees all wages they would
have earned if we had reinstated them to their former
or substantially equivalent jobs when they or Local 455,
on their behalf, made an unconditional offer to us to
return to work.
G. ZAFFtNo AND SONS, INC.
304