IPCO Hospital Supply Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 995 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

STANDARD SCIENTIFIC 995
Standard Scientific , a Division of IPCO Hospital Sup-
ply Corp . and Herminia Martucci and District 65,
Wholesale , Retail, Office and Processing Union, Na-
tional Council , Distributive Workers of America,
ALA, Party to the Contract. Case 22-CA-4463
March 22, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On November 22, 1971, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. There-
after, the Union filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.I
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has ' delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings,
findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.
Labor Relations Act, as amended,' by recognizing the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent's office clerical employees at its Piscataway, New Jersey,
location; engaging in contract negotiations with that organi-
zation; concluding a union security agreement with the
Union; and thereafter threatening its office clerical employees
with discharge unless-they became members of the Union. At
the close of the hearing, the General Counsel argued his
position orally; the other parties waived oral argument. Briefs
were subsequently filed by the General Counsel and the
Union.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and with due consideration being
given to the contentions advanced by the parties, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New York corporation, is engaged in
the wholesale distribution of hospital supplies at its facilities
in New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, and Texas. The facility at
Piscataway, New Jersey, is the only operation here involved.
It annually sells and distributes from this facility goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are directly
shipped to points in other'States.
It is undisputed, and I find, that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Standard
Scientific, a Division of IPCO Hospital Supply Corp.,
Piscataway, New Jersey, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
' In its brief to the Board , the Union moved that certain proposed exhibits
attached to the brief be admitted into evidence There is no claim that the
proposed exhibits are newly discovered evidence , nor is any other cogent
reason advanced warranting admission of the proposed exhibits at this stage
of this proceding . Accordingly, we deny the motion. See Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, Section 102 48(d)(1).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BISGYER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, with all
the parties represented, was heard on August 30, 1971, at
Newark, New Jersey, on the complaint of the General Coun-
sel, issued on July 2, 19711 and the separate answers of Stan-
dard Scientific, a Division of Ipco Hospital Supply Corp.,
herein called the Respondent or Company, and District 65,
Wholesale, Retail, Office and Processing Union, National
Council, Distributive Workers of America, ALA,' herein
called the Union. In issue is the question whether the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the National
' The complaint is based on a charge filed by Herminia Martucci on May
20, 1971, copies of which were duly served on the Respondent and the
Union by registered mail the following day.
2 The name in the caption appears as amended at the hearing.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Facts
The Respondent is charged with unlawfully continuing to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the Respondent's office clerical employees after
it moved its Carlstadt, New Jersey, facility to Piscataway,
New Jersey, although these employees concededly had never
designated the Union to represent them. The relevant circum-
stances are virtually undisputed and are, as follows:
For some 6 years the Union was the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent's office clerical and ware-
house employees pursuant to successive contracts. The last
agreement in effect at the Carlstadt facility4 was executed on
March 15, 1968, for a 3-year term expiring on March 15,
' Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an
employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in section 7." The latter provision states
[e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3).
Insofar as pertinent, Section 8(a)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice for an
employer "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it."
' This facility was originally located in New York until December 1967
when it was moved to Carlstadt with virtually the same personnel.
195 NLRB No. 182
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1971.5 In February 1971,6 the Respondent decided to move
ite operation to Piscataway, a distance of 30-miles, where its
parent company was, and still is, located. This decision was
made -on-the basis of legitimate business considerations - at
least no contention to the contrary is made. At a meeting
called in the early part_ of February bh Branch Manager
Charles Leffler and attended by the Company's president, the
employees were, notified of the contemplated move and were
given the opportunity to transfer to the new locations. About
a day or 2 later notices were posted in the office and ware-
house for employees to sign if they were interested in transfer-
ring. None of the six office clerical employees in the contract
unit, with which this case is solely concerned," accepted the
offer or signed this notice. Only, one nonunit person, Her-
minia Ma'rtuccia, the then secretary of Office Manager Mat-
thew Bowden, placed her name on the notice and she was
subsequently employed in Piscataway as a rank-and-file office
clerical worker. Although there is testimony that the Re-
spondent failed to give the Union advance notice of its move,
the Union did learn of these plans before the Carlstadt opera-
tion was closed down and had some discussions with the
Respondent concerning the move and the consequent loss of
jobs its constituents were going to suffer.'
On February 25 or 26, the Respondent discontinued its
operations at Carlstadt and resumed them at.the Ipco facility
on the following Monday, March 1. On the latter date,,Mar-
tuccibegan her employment there as an office clerical worker,
as did t er newly hired employees. Four more office
employees were o the staff the following week and
another at an undisclosed-time-therea€te-rj.-making a total
complement of eight office employees. It is conceded that
none of these employees ever joined the Union or otherwise
designated it as their bargaining representative. Admittedly,
the Union did not make any effort to solicit their'membership
either.
In response to the relocation, the Union began picketing
the discontinued Carlstadt facility on or about February 25
with the office employees previously employed there. On
March 1, the Union instituted picketing at the Piscataway
location with the terminated Carlstadt warehouse employees.
While these activities were in progress, the then existing con-
tract expired on March 15.
The strike lasted until March 22-23 'when the parties.en-
tered into a settlement agreement. Among other things, this
agreement provided for severance and vacation pay and a
bonus for the Carlstadt office clerical and 'warehouse em-'
ployees "in lieu of a position" with the Respondent; the ter-
mination of picketing; and the waiver of the Union's demand
to represent the'warehouse workers.' In addition, the parties
agreed "to negotiate a new agreement 'for ... [the Com-
pany's] office employees at the Piscataway location ...."
' Until the execution of the 1968 contract, these employees were covered
by separate contracts, one for the office clerical employees and the other for
the warehouse workers.
All dates refer to 1971, unless otherwise indicated
As will be discussed below, the Union relinguished its right to represent
the warehouse workers as part of a strike settlement agreement. It is there-
fore unnecessary to determine'whether the warehouse workers informed the
Respondent of their interest in retaining their jobs at the Piscataway loca-
tion
S
The Union did not file any unfair labor practice charges against the
Respondent, alleging a breach of the Respondent's bargaining obligation
with respect to the relocation or its failure to renegotiate the then expiring
contract pursuant to the Union's notification which it had served upon the
Respondent before learning of the contemplated move
' It appears that at this time another union was representing Ipco's ware-
house employees at the Piscataway-location. Apparently, these employees
were assigned the Respondent's warehouse functions
Provision was-also made for -the arbitration^of deadlocked
issued during which time there would be"no strikes or picket-
ing.
Undeniably , the Respondent complied with its financial
obligations under the settlement agreement and neither 'the
Carlstadt employees nor the Union on'their behalf thereafter
made any claim to jobs at the Piscataway facility. It is also
clear that following a delay the Respondent and the Union
had some conversations in the latter part of May regarding
the execution of a contract covering the Respondent's Pis-
cataway office clerical employees. As a result , the Respondent
mailed to the Union a copy of a proposed 3-year union-
security contract dated June 7 which the Union subsequently
returned with certain suggested changes and corrections. Al-
though the Respondent 's attorney 's office advised the Union
that it would present the Union 's proposed , changes to the
Company, no answer was ever relayed to the Union nor has
any contract been finalized or signed by the parties.
On April 2, long before the Respondent 's submission of its
purposed contract to the Union , office employee Martucci
prepared a petition , which six Piscataway office employees
signed, that they did "not want to be represented by Dist. 65,
or any other union ." She-testified that she took this action
upon learning from former Carlstadt office employees that
the Union was seeking to continue to represent the office
employees at, Piscataway . However, , she retained this petition
in her possession without informing the Respondent of its
existence until the middle of May when she observed Union
Vice President Julio Reyes at the Piscataway `facility: There-
upon, she brought the document to the Board 's regional office
where it was suggested that she present this petition to her
employer . Accordingly , on May 18, Martucci handed the
petition to Office Manager Bowden ,stating that the office em-
ployees were not interested in being represented by the Union
or any other labor organization: Bowden answered that it was
no uge as the Company and the Union were already engaged
in contract negotiations . Bowden , however, accepted the peti-
tion which he promptly turned over to Branch 'Manager
Leffler.
On May 20, Martucci filed the charge herein , alleging that
the Respondent was violating the Act by ,bargaining with the
Union despite the fact that the Union did' not represent a
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit . Copies of
this ' charge were served upon the Respondent and the Union
by registered -mail the next day. It is not claimed that they
were not received.
Notwithstanding the, fact that no formal contract had been
executed by the parties, Leffler in the first or second week in
June apprised Bowden of his plans to hold a meeting of office
employees at'which he and the Respondent 's attorney would
discuss the terms of a new agreement applicable to them
which the Company and the Union had negotiated. Either on
this or a subsequent occasion, Bowden reminded Leffler of
the petition Martucci had submitted in which the office em-
ployees indicated their lack of interest in the Union. Leffier's
only response was that 'they would have to join it anyway as
the Union . could pull another strike which the Company
could'ill afford . Bowden thereupon conveyed this information
to the office employees, including the' fact that they would
have to join the Union or risk discharge . Martucci then re-
quested a copy of the contract which, Bowden secured from
Leffler and gave it to her, repeating the admonition that the
office employees would be dismissed unless they joined the
Union . " The contemplated meeting was never held; nor does
10 The foregoing findings are based upon Bowden's undisputed tes-
timony, as corroborated in part by Martucci
STANDARD SCIENTIFIC 997
it appear that the union security provision in the unexecuted
contract was ever actually enforced.
B. Concluding Findings
The Respondent takes no affirmative position in this case
with respect to the legality of its recognition of the Union as
the exclusive representative of the Company's office clerical
employees at the Piscataway facility. The Union, on the other
hand, vigorously defends such recognition, even though
concededly the Piscataway office clerical employees had
never designated it as their bargaining agent. In support of its
contentions, the Union relies on the 6-year collective-bargain-
ing history; its legitimate strike caused by the Respondent's
relocation of the Carlstadt operation before the expiration of
the then current bargaining contract; and the good-faith set-
tlement of the strike which included a commitment by the
Respondent to negotiate a new agreement for the surviving
office clerical unit in Piscataway. I find the Union's argument
without merit and conclude, instead, that recognition of the
Union and the ensuing contract negotiations violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
The Board has held with court approval that, absent spe-
cial circumstances, where a bargaining relationship has been
validly established either by Board certification or by volun-
tary recognition, an irrebuttable presumption attaches 'that
the Union's representative status continues for a reasonable
time -ordinarily a year in the case of a certified union- so
as to afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to negotiate
a contract, regardless of any intervening loss of the Union's
majority status." It is also firmly established that after this
initial period of undisturbed bargaining has elapsed the pre-
sumption becomes rebuttable and the employer is no longer
obligated to bargain if he has a good-faith doubt of the
Union's continuing majority status based on objective consid-
eration." The foregoing principles reflect a practical and real-
istic balancing by the Board of two statutory aims; one, to
preserve the employees' freedom to choose a bargaining rep-
resentative and the other, to provide a measure of stability for
established bargaining relationships.
Applying these principles to the present case, I find that,
notwithstanding the history of bargaining relations between
the parties, the Respondent was not justified in continuing to
recognize the Union and bargaining with it as the exclusive
representative of the Piscataway office clerical employees. It
is undisputed that no Carlstadt office clerical employee was
interested in transferring to Piscataway and, indeed, all of
them voluntarily accepted severance pay and other benefits in
lieu of resuming employment at that facility. As a conse-
quence, the Respondent hired an entire new staff of office
clerical employees, not one of whom was ever a member of
the Union or the bargaining unit in Carlstadt or authorized
the Union to represent her. In fact, even before the Respond-
ent and the Union began negotiations covering the Piscata-
way office clericals, the Respondent was served with a peti-
tion, signed by six out of seven or eight in the unit, that they
did not want to be represented by the Union or any other,
labor organization. In these circumstances, assuming that the
integrity of the previously established bargaining uint was not,
impaired by the agreed-upon exclusion of the warehouse
"Ray Brooks v .N.LR H, 348 U S 96, affirming 204 F 2d 899 (C.A 9),
enfg. 98 NLRB 976, N.LR B v Frick Company, 423 F 2d 1327 (C.A 3),
enfg 175 NLRB 233, N.L R.B. v Master Touch Dental Laboratories, Inc,
405 F 2d 80 (C A.2), enfg. in part and setting aside in part 165 NLRB 585,
Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc., 157 NLRB 583, Laystrom Manufacturing Co.,
151 NLRB 1482, enforcement denied on other grounds 359 F.2d 799
(C A.7)
` Ibid
workers, it could hardly be argued with any seriousness that
the presumption of the Union's continuing majority status in
the Piscataway unit was not rebutted by the demonstrated
rejection of that organization by the office clerical employees
or that the Respondent was not aware, although knowledge
is not important," of the Union's complete lack of employee
support. It thus follows that the Union was not entitled to
represent the Piscataway office employees and that the Re-
spondent was not justified in foisting the Union upon them,
even though the Respondent might have believed it was ex-
pedient to do so.14
All things considered, I conclude that, by extending exclu-
sive recognition to the Union and bargaining with it for a new
contract covering the Piscataway office clerical employees,
whether or not a contract was ultimately consummated, the
Respondent deprived employees of their statutory right to be
represented by a bargaining agent of their own choice in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and lent unlawful
assistance and support to the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(2) of the Act.15 I further find that, by informing the
employees that they risked discharge if they did not join the
Union as required by the contract, which appears never to
have been executed, the Respondent violated the same provi-
sions of the Act. In any event, even if it be assumed that a
contract'had actually been concluded, it would not protect
the Respondent's statements to the employees. By its terms,
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act" sanctions a union security agree-
ment only where the labor organization is not unlawfully
assisted by the employer. As I have found that the Union was
tainted in this respect, such a contract would be invalid.
As an alternative contention, the Union urges the Board to
defer to a pending arbitration proceeding and dismiss the
complaint. Viewing the March 22-23 settlement agreement
mentioned above as an extension of the expired Carlstadt
contract," it appears that the Union instituted arbitration
proceedings about May 19 to require the Respondent to en-
force the union security provisions contained in the expired
Carlstadt contract against the Piscataway office clerical em-
ployees.18 Apart from the fact that I see nothing in the strike
settlement agreement indicating that the provisions of the
expired contract were to continue in effect pending the
negotiation of a new contract for the Piscataway office em-
ployees, the issue before the Board is whether the exclusive
recognition of the Union provided for in the settlement agree-
ment was an unfair labor practice. Obviously, this is a matter
falling within the special competence of the Board to resolve.
As the case before the Board does not essentially involve a
dispute over the terms and meaning of a contract, as was the
" International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, v.
N.L.R B., 366 U S. 731, 738-739
14 N..LR.B. v. Gluek Brewing Co, 144 F 2d 847, 855 (CA. 8), N.L.R.B.
v Hudson Motor Car Co., 128 F 2d 528, 532 (C A 6).
" International Ladies'Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v: N.L.R.B.,
supra, 738
6 Section 8(a)(3) in relevant part, provides that "nothing in this Act
shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor
organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined
in section 8(a) of this Act as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condi-
tion of employment membership therein . .
" It is noted that a letter dated August 9 sent by the Respondent to the
American Arbitration Association states that there was no contract in exist-
ence-providing for arbitration and that therefore the Association should
decline jurisdiction
18 The settlement agreement also has an arbitration provision which is
manifestly inapplicable to the situation here presented. As indicated above,
this provision comes into play only when an impasse results during the
negotiation of a new agreement for the Piscataway office clerical employees
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
situation in Collyer," there are no policy considerations.war-
ranting deference to arbitration." Moreover, a conclusion by
the arbitrator vindicating the Union's exclusive representa-
tive status and its claim to the benefits of the union security
provisions would clearly be repugnant to the policies of the
Act and therefore not entitled to acceptance.21 Accordingly,
I reject the Union's contrary contention.
IV THE REMEDY
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, I recom-
mend that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in
the unfair labor practices found and in like and related con-
duct and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has unlawfully
recognized and bargained with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the Company's Piscataway office clerical
employees. Accordingly, I recommend that the Respondent
be ordered to withdraw and withhold such recognition and
bargaining rights unless and until the Union has demon-
strated its majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted
election among these employees. It is further recommended
that the Respondent be ordered to refrain from giving any
force or effect to any agreement that might have resulted from
its negotiations with the Union. However, nothing herein
shall be construed as requiring the Respondent to vary any
wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of its rela-
tions with its employees which the Respondent has estab-
lished as a result of its dealings with the Union. The posting
of an appropriate notice is also recommended.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the Company's office clerical employees at
its Piscataway, New Jersey, facility, and engaging in contract
negotiations with that organization at a time when the Union
did not enjoy majority status, the Respondent has engaged,
and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
as amended, I hereby issue, the following recommended-"
" Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB
No 150.
20 Cf Kalamazoo Typographical Union, Local 122, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO (Booth Newspapers, Inc) 193 NLRB No 159.
Spielberg Manufacturing Company. 112 NLRB 1080, 1082
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of,the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
ORDER
The Respondent, Standard Scientific, a Division of Ipco
Hospital Supply Corp., Piscataway, New Jersey, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully assisting or contributing support to District
65, Wholesale, Retail, Office and Processing Union, National
Council, Distributive Workers of America, ALA, or any
other labor organization.
(b) Recognizing the above-named union as the exclusive
representative of Company's office clerical employees at its
Piscataway, New Jersey, facility, for the purpose of dealing
with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other' conditions of employ-
ment, unless and until the said labor organization shall have
demonstrated its majority status pursuant to a Board-con-
ducted election among these employees.
(c) Giving effect to the recognition provisions of the March
22-23, 1971, settlement agreement between the Company
and the above-named union, or to any collective- bargaining
contract reached pursuant to such provisions, or to any ex-
tension, renewal or, modification thereof provided, however,
that nothing in this Order shall require the. Respondent to
vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other substan-
tive feature of its relations with its employees which the Re-
spondent has established as a result of its dealings with the
above-named union or to take any action which would preju-
dice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have
thereby acquired.
(d) Informing advising, or warning the Piscataway office
clerical employees that they risk discharge if they do not join
the above-named union.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the extent that
such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the above-
named union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
office clerical employees at its Piscataway, New Jersey,
facility, for the purpose of dealing with the Company con-,
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless
and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated its
majority status pursuant to a board-conducted election
among these employees.
(b) Post at its facility in Piscataway, New Jersey, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 22, after being duly signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where, notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
23 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
STANDARD SCIENTIFIC 999
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature of our
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps relations with our employees established as a result of
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.24 our dealings with the above-named union or prejudice
31 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read-
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The act gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain, as a group through a representative
they chose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any and all of these activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully assist or contribute support
to District 65, Wholsesale, Retail, Office and Processing
Union, National Council, Distributive Workers of
America, ALA, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT recognize the above-named union as
the exclusive representative of the Company's office
clerical employees at its Piscataway, New Jersey,
facility, for the purpose of dealing with us concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, unless
and until the said labor organization shall have demon-
strated its majority status pursuant to a Board-con-
ducted election among these employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the recognition provisions
of the March 22-23, 1971, settlement agreement be-
tween the Company and the above-named union, or to
any collective-bargaining contract reached pursuant to
such provisions, or to an extension, renewal or modifica-
tion thereof. However, we will not vary or abandon any
the assertion by employees of any rights they may have
thereby acquired.
WE WILL NOT inform, advise, or warn our Piscataway
office clerical employees that they risk discharge if they
do not join the above-named union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
the above-named union as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of our office clerical employees at our Pis-
cataway, New Jersey,, facility, for the purpose of dealing
with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, unless and until the said labor organiza-
tion shall have demonstrated its majority status pursu-
ant to a Board-conducted election among these em-
ployees.
Dated By
STANDARD SCIENTIFIC,
A DIVISION OF
IPCO HOSPITAL
SUPPLY CORP.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and, must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to
the Board's Office, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970 Broad
Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone 201-645-
2100.