Local 457, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, ETC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 980 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

'980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BO. MD
WE WILL make whole all eligible employees for any losses they
- may have suffered by reason of our unlawful unilateral changes
in their terms and conditions of employment.
Local 457, United Rubber , Cork , Linoleum and Plastic Workers
of America, AFL-CIO and Walter McGraw and Kentile, -Inc.
and United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Party in Interest . Cases Nos. 2-CB-3828
and 2-CB-3831. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER'
On March 20, 1964, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding' that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to his De-
cision and supporting briefs, and the Charging Party filed a reply
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a 'three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the ex-
ceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions
and modifications : i
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by demanding the discharge of
Fred M. Caruso on the ground that he was not included within the
unit represented by the Respondent and that the union-security clause
was therefore not applicable to him. The Respondent asserts that its
request for his discharge stemmed from an inadvertent error made
by the Company when it included his name in a list of employees. It
clearly appears from the evidence, however, that the Respondent be-
lieved Caruso to have been a strikebreaker and that its request for his
discharge was motivated by this consideration. It is solely on that
basis that we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
1 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties.
147 NLRB No. 115.
LOCAL 457, UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM, ETC. 981
spondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by its de-
mand for the discharge of Caruso.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8(b) (1) (A) and (2) by attempting to cause the discharges of em-
ployees Seymour and Thimm. He based his finding on the fact that
the Respondent demanded that the two employees pay dues for a 3-
month period between January and July 1963, when the Respondent
had no contract and thus no lawful union-security clause entitling it
to make such a demand. We agree. We find as an additional ground,
however, that the Respondent was also unlawfully motivated in re-
questing the discharge of these two employees by the same considera-
tions that led it to demand the discharge of the replacements-that,
although members of the Respondent who had originally gone out on
strike, they had returned to work before the conclusion of the strike
and were therefore strikebreakers in the eyes of Respondent.
3. The Respondent contends that the Board should suspend its
proceedings herein pending completion of arbitration under its con-
tract with the Company. The record shows that subsequent to the
filing of charges herein, the Respondent, by letter to the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service dated September 6, 1963, requested
arbitration. Thereafter the Company, in an action under. Section 301
of the Labor Management Relations Act, sought to enjoin the arbitra-
tion proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.' On April 17, 1964, the court granted the re-
quested stay .in the arbitration proceedings pending the conclusion of
the proceedings herein. The court having thus deferred to us, we
perceive no reason why we should not proceed to a decision in this
case.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner with the amendment noted below, and
orders that Respondent Local 457, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
'Kentile, Inc. v. Local 457, United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum & Plastic 'Yorkers of
America, AFL-CIO, 55 LRRM 3011 (April 17, 1964).
3 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and (2 ) of the Act by demanding the discharge of the employees listed in Appendix A of
the Trial Examiner's Decision. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's additional finding
that the Respondent violated the same sections of the Act by its request for arbitration
under the contract.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge in Case No . 2-CB-3828 filed on August 27, 1963, by Walter
McGraw, an individual, and a charge in Case No. 2-CB-3831 filed on August 29,
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1963, by Kentile, Inc., the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
on November 1, 1963, issued his order consolidating the two cases, a consolidated
complaint, and a notice of hearing. Answers were duly filed by the Respondent
Local and the party in interest. The complaint alleges and the answers deny • that
the Respondent Local 457 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(b)(1) (A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in New York, New York, on
January 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1964, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to
present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs
have been received from General Counsel and the Union.
Disposition of the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint, upon which
ruling was reserved at the conclusion of the hearing, is made by the following find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF KENTILE, INC.
Kentile, Inc., is a New York corporation , with office and place of business in
Brooklyn , New York, and plants in other States of the United States, where it is
engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of rubber , cork , vinyl, asbestos
tile, and flooring and related products . The Brooklyn plant is the only one here
involved.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint Kentile, Inc., made, sold,
and distributed from its Brooklyn plant products valued at more than $50,000 which
were shipped from this plant in interstate commerce directly to States other than
New York.
The complaint alleges, the answers admit, and it is here found that Kentile, Inc.,
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 457, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and chief issues
The main issue here arises from the undisputed fact that by letter of August 19,
1963, the Respondent Local 457 demanded that Kentile, Inc., immediately discharge
nearly 100 employees. The principal question of law involved is whether the Act,
specifically Section 8(b)(2) thereof, prohibits the making of the demand under the
factual circumstances established by the record.
The setting may quickly be described as follows. For some 10 years Kentile and
Local 457 (and/or its parent International) have been parties to successive collective-
bargaining agreements, covering employees in an appropriate unit. Upon expiration
of a contract in January 1963, the Union called a strike, apparently in an effort to
support its negotiations for a new contract. The strike continued until mid-July.
Between January and July, Kentile hired many permanent replacements, as the law
permits during an economic strike. At one point during the contract negotiations,
it is undisputed, the Union insisted that, as a condition for settlement, Kentile must
discharge these replacements to provide jobs for returning strikers. The Employer
declined to accept this provision and in mid-July a contract was finally executed
which contained a union-security clause requiring membership as a condition of
employment.' A provision for recall of strikers for whom no positions were im-
mediately available was also included.
1 Relevant excerpts from article 2:
A. All employees of the Employer, on the thirty-first (31st) day following the be-
ginning of their employment or thirty-one (31) days following the date of the execu-
tion of this Agreement, whichever is later, shall become and shall continue to remain
members of the Union in good standing, as a term and condition of employment. The
LOCAL 457, UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM, ETC. ' 983
On July 15 there were a few more than 100 striker-replacements on Kentile's
payroll. In order of seniority about 310 strikers were recalled. All available jobs
then being filled, some 240 strikers were not recalled at once, but in accordance
with the agreement were placed upon a preferential rehiring list.
Obviously inherent in this situation was a factor to be considered more fully
below: the resentment of union officials and returning strikers against employees
who had crossed their picket lines. during the strike and who were being retained
on jobs from which other strikers were presently being barred.
Although the Union, by virtue of its new contract, became the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the appropriate unit, including the replacements, it
took no step so far as the record shows to inform such replacements of the union-
security provisions of that agreement.
Upon its own attorney's advice, however, the Employer finally, toward the end
of July, posted a notice on plant bulletin boards addressed to "Replacement Em-
ployees," informing them in effect that pursuant to its contract with the Union they
"should become members" within 31 days from July 15. Union officials promptly
objected to the heading of this notice and the Employer posted a new one, with the
identical text but headed only "Notice." 2
Under circumstances described below almost all of the replacement employees
failed to make formal application for union membership before the deadline date
of August 15, 1963. On August 19 union officials sent the Employer a written de-
mand for the immediate discharge of named employees, listed in Appendix A attached
hereto. Two days later the personnel manager, also by letter, declined to honor the
demand, contending that he was persuaded, after some investigation, that "the
Union has attempted through subterfuge and inaction to discriminate against the
replacement employees" and informing the Union that unless it furnished the listed
employees with dues (checkoff) authorizations and membership cards "appropriate
action" under the law would be taken.
The Employer promptly posted both the union demand and its reply. One of the
replacement employees, Walter McGraw, the Charging Party in Case No. 2-CB-3828,
then circulated and obtained signatures to a petition bearing the text:
We the undersigned, individually & collectively request you -immediately
give us membership cards, as you have done with your other members.
As we all would like to become members of Local 457, URW.
The petition was presented to the union president, Fiore, about August 26. Fiore
received but put aside the petition, merely telling McGraw and others with him that
they were too late. On that date, also, Fiore replied to the personnel manager's
letter, again demanding discharge action and stating that there was "no intention on
the part of this union to respond to your `call' upon us." It is reasonably assumed,
in the context, that Fiore' s use of the term "call" was referring to the demand that
the Union provide replacements with certain union cards and applications.
Union agrees to admit all eligible employees of the Employer to membership without
discrimination upon payment of the customary Union dues and initiation fee.
C. The Employer shall not be obligated to discharge any employee for nonmember-
ship in the Union If the Employer has reasonable grounds for believing that the
membership was not available to the employee on the-same terms and conditions
generally applicable to other employees or, if the Employer has reasonable grounds
for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than failure
of the employee to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as
a condition oy acquiring or retaining membership.
2The text reads:
All employees of the Employer, on the thirty-first (31st) day following the beginning
of their employment or thirty-one (31) days following the date of the execution of
this agreement, 'whichever is later, shall become and shall continue to remain mem-
bers of the Union (Local 457, URW) in good standing, as a term and condition of
employment. The Union agrees to admit all eligible employees of the Employer to
membership without discrimination upon payment of the customary union dues and
initiation fee.
_ This would mean employees should become members of the Union (Local 457, URW)
thirty-one (31) days after the signing of the latest United Rubber Worker agreement,
which commenced on July 15, 1963.
R. J. PANARO, Personnel Manager.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer did not and has not complied with the discharge demand. Charges
were filed by McGraw and by the Employer.
The foregoing summarizes facts relevant to the main issue of the case: the demand
for the mass discharge. Subsidiary to the main issue is the Union's demand for the
discharge of three individuals on other grounds.
B. Additional facts relevant to the main issue
In addition to the circumstances set out above, credible testimony, much of which
is undisputed, establishes the following facts material to the question as to whether
or not the Union has attempted to cause the Employer to discharge the replacements
in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act:
1. From mid-1962 until the beginning of the strike in January 1963, the Employer
had followed a practice of furnishing, as a part of its hiring process, union dues-
deduction authorization and membership application cards to new employees.
2. During the 1963 negotiations Personnel Manager Panaro offered, but the union
officials did not accept, continuation of this service to the Union in the processing of
returning strikers. There appears to have been no discussion as to the responsibility
for getting such cards signed by the employees already working and who had re-
placed strikers.
3. Shortly after returning to work union officials made it plain, both to manage-
ment representatives and replacement employees, that they had no intention of at-
tempting to implement, so far as the replacements were concerned, the union-security
provisions of the contract. Union officials requested and were provided with the
supply of union cards which until then had been in company possession. Union
President Fiore told his supervisor, Kulina, in reply to the latter's question about the
replacements: "We will never take them in the Union under any conditions. We
don't want them."
4. Immediately upon returning to work Richard Walker, a union board member,
told replacement employees Young, Yates, and others that they would never get
into the Union, and that if the Company did not let them go union members would
drive them out.3
5. Union Steward Robinson told replacement M. Dinkins that the replacements
would not be able to withstand (union) pressure and their numbers would be
diminishing.
6. In response to a question from replacement Bennerson , Union Secretary Woods
replied that no union wanted to let "scabs" become members.
7. Personnel Manager Panaro's testimony is uncontradicted to the effect that the
returning strikers' resentment toward the replacements became so threatening that
it became necessary to set up separate locker rooms.
8. Late in July the union treasurer asked for, and received, permission from
Panaro to distribute to departmental stewards, on company time, supplies of checkoff
cards.
9. Union representatives, both in the plant and at union meetings, proceeded to
solicit signatures from union members to these cards. As witnesses, however, these
union officials admitted that they made no effort to obtain such authorizations or
membership applications from replacement employees.
10. Although varying somewhat in details, credible testimony of several replace-
ment employees establishes that:
(a) When they approached Union Vice President Simpson in the plant and asked
about cards to be signed Simpson said that he had none, yet.
(b) Simpson provided union member and striker Catuagno with a card.
11. When replacements approached union officials and stewards about joining
they were repeatedly told not to worry, someone would let them.know later.
12. When a number of replacements tried to locate union officials on the dead-
line date, such officials were absent from the plant.
13. A number of replacements, learning from fellow employees of their futile
attempts to obtain cards or information, took no steps on their own behalf to ap-
proach union officials.
14. Some replacements, Spanish-speaking, could not or did not read and under-
stand the company's posted notice.
15. So far as the record shows, only two replacements were permitted actually to
join the Union. Both were told by the union official or member providing the neces-
sary card that they should not tell others.
8 Walker's denials are unconvincing and are not credited.
LOCAL 457_, UNITED RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM, ETC. 98.5
C. Conclusions as to the main issue,. -
The foregoing facts lead directly, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, to the
conclusion that union officials, having failed during negotiations to obtain the- Em-
ployer's agreement to discharge the replacements upon settlement of the 'strike,
designed, planned, and carried out a definite program of evasion and inaction with the
full intent of gaining the same end: ridding'the plant of the soo-called "scabs" in order
to provide jobs for the loyal strikers. From the Union's point of view this plan
no doubt seemed plausible, logical, and most appropriate. Having obtained a new
union-security clause, requiring membership by a certain date, all that appeared neces-
sary was to avoid, by inaction, permitting the strikebreakers to meet the requirements
and then demand their discharge.
Only the most naive could expect strikers, after a long and bitter economic struggle,
to welcome and solicit into their ranks the very individuals who, by taking their jobs
during the strike, had caused prolongation of the struggle. To understand a motive,
however, is not to condone an unlawful act:
It is clear, and is concluded and found, that the real motive for the Union's de-
mand for the discharge of the individuals. listed in, Appendix A was to reach the
above-noted end: ousting the "scabs" to provide jobs for its loyal members. The
genuine reason, then, was other than failure to comply with the contract require-
ments, and the Employer was fully justified in refusing to comply with the demand.
In his well-documented brief General Counsel convincingly disposes of the Re-
spondent's claim that it was the obligation of the replacement employees to seek out
union officials, obtain and sign cards, by citing numerous cases wherein the Board and
the courts have warned labor organizations, in effect, that in acquiring union-security
provisions in a contract they must assume, at the same time, certain "fiduciary duties."
In particular he cites N.L.R.B. v. Hotel, Motel and- Club Employees' Union, Local
568 (Philadelphia Sheraton Corp.), 320 F. 2d 254 (C.A. 3), wherein the U.S. Court
of Appeals, Third Circuit, said, in part:
At the minimum, this duty requires that the union inform- the employee of his
obligations in order that the employee may take whatever action is necessary to
protect his job tenure . The Union may not evade this duty . and
then demand the dismissal of the employee when he becomes delinquent in the
payment of his dues.
Having reasonable grounds for believing that membership in the Union was being
denied the replacements for reasons other than failure to pay dues or become mem-
bers, the Respondent. would plainly have violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act had it
effectuated the discharges as demanded by the Union.
It is therefore concluded and found that by attempting to cause the Employer to
violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respondent Local engaged in unfair labor
practices violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
D. The arbitration issue
The complaint' alleges, the answer admits, and it is found that on September 6,
1963, the Union demanded that the Employer proceed to arbitration, under provi-
sions of the contract, on the issue of its refusal to discharge the replacements.
General Counsel properly urges, and it is concluded and found, that this demand
was in further violation of the same sections of the Act .4
E. The cases of employees Thimm and Seymour -
The circumstances surrounding the demanded discharge of these two employees
are somewhat different from those involving. the replacements. There is no dispute
that- the Union demanded their discharge and. that the Employer refused .5
4 Local 140, Bedding, Curtain & Drapery Workers Union, et al ., 109 NLRB 326 at
328-329. -
5 While his ancient eyesight may be at fault, the Trial Examiner fails to find the name
"Otto Thimm" on the list attached to the Union's demand of August 19 which Is before
him as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6. At the hearing General Counsel stated, without
objection: "One of the names on that August 19 letter is the name 'Otto Thimm.' " All
counsel and the Trial Examiner apparently assumed this to be the case, and his case was
fully litigated, and In his brief counsel for the Respondent urged that It was "lawfully
entitled" to request the discharge of both Seymour and Thimm. The latter' s name is
therefore included in Appendix A.
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In summary , both Otto Thimm and Terry Seymour had been union members be-
fore the strike, had participated for a time in the strike , and then had returned to
work. Without burdening this Decision with details not essential to determination
of the issues relative to each , as to the matter of dues tender , it is the position of
the Union that at the time of the requested discharge, in August, both employees
were 3 months or more delinquent in dues payments , and that according to the
International 's constitution both were in default and were dropped from membership.
The plain fact is, as General Counsel notes in his brief, that there was no contract
in existence from January to July 1963, and the Respondent 's claim for dues during
a period when no union -security clause was in effect was unlawful . ( See Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, etc. and its Local 899 (John I. Paul-
ding, Inc.), 142 NLRB 296, footnote 3.)
It is concluded and found that by attempting , on unlawful grounds, to cause the
Employer to discharge employees Seymour and Thimm; the Respondent Local
violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2 ) of the Act.
F. The issue of Caruso
Fred M. Caruso, listed in Appendix A attached hereto and in the union letter of
August 19, was a replacement hired during the strike as a trainee laboratory techni-
cian , in a category specifically excluded from the appropriate unit covered by the
July 15, 1963, contract. The union-security clause obviously was not binding upon
him.
It is therefore concluded and found that by demanding the discharge of Caruso,
not in the unit covered by the contract, the Respondent Union further violated
Section 8 (b,) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above have a close, intimate , and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the. several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the base, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Local 457 has violated and is violating Section 8(b) (2) of
the Act by attempting to cause Kentile, Inc., to discriminate against employees in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3), by
demanding their discharge in the letter of August 19, 1963, and by demanding
arbitration of the issue.
2. The same Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8 (b)(1) (A) of
the Act by restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, by the acts referred to above.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law , and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Local 457, United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
representatives, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requesting Kentile, Inc., to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any
employee when such discharge or discrimination would be in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act:
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing 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 membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
LOCAL 457, UNITED RUBBER, CORK , LINOLEUM; ETC. 987
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Kentile , Inc., in writing , that it withdraws its demands that the em-
ployees listed in Appendix A be discharged for nonpayment of dues ' to the
Respondent. - - "
. (b) Post- at its office and meeting halls copies of the attached. notice marked
"Appendix B." 6 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Second Region -, shall, after being duly signed by- an official representative
of the Respondent Local , be posted immediately upon receipt thereof , and be main-'
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous -places, including all
places where notices to members are 'customarily posted . - Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(c) Mail signed copies of the notice to the , Regional Director for the Second
Region for posting by Kentile , Inc., it being willing, at all locations where notices
to its employees are customarily posted in its plant at Brooklyn , New York.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of the Trial Examiner 's Decision , what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.?
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a.
Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the.words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order." .
7 1n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the ,.Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
Otto Thimm Donald Flannigan Thars Baskerville, Jr.
Michael Davis Henry Kelley Arthur R. Miller
Ben Dinkins Harold J. Young Joseph Yates
Melvin Hooker Frank A. Maurullo Pedro Barrettoe
John R. Bloxsom Thomas H. Reed James E. Goude
Allen Dinkins Charles A. Vennerson Fermin Santiago
Jesse Gould John F. Holloway Melvin Bradford
Willie J. Legagneur Mario Santos Isaac A. McFadden
Morris Todd Frederick L. -Williams Luis A. Ortis .
Vincent J. McKinney, Jr. Carmel Fonseca Francisco Rodriquez
Curtis Thomas Ralph Formisano Victor Rodriquez
Willie N. Ferguson Phillip Dorsey Santiago Soto
Fred D. Oliver Cesar A. Miranda Encarnacion Agosto
James A. Young Mario Olavarria Ismael Bentancourt
Andrew Criscione Theodore V. Parker Isabel Caban
Fred Krischke -Peter Rivera Reinaldo Cardona
Walter M. McGraw Roberto Sanchez Jose Carrero
Charles Thomas Emilio Vargas Moses Dinkens
Gregory Torres Mike A. Fernandez Miguel A. Espanos
Dan A. Ferguson Joseph M . DePrima Thomas Rivera
Edward Flannigan Edward Nelson Monico Caban
Robert L. Hillman, Fred M. Caruso Santiago Garcia
Lloyd Pearsall Justin Rosado Doffice McDougle
Carlos L. Torres Raymon Santiago William- D. Simenton,
Claude - S. Pullet Jose E. Correa Reginald R. Joseph
German Vargas Sabo Publio Delgado, Cooper Ward
Jose A. Ventura John Gembara Phillip •A. Ward
William Cornell Jose A. Perez, William P. Baldwin
Anthony Fecunda Benjamin J. Foster William Leach
Pedro Padilla Esmeraldo Sepulveda Allen Taylor
Eduardo Vargas Santiago Goberto Velazquez Russell Goodwin
Anthony M. Zecchini Joseph N. Carr Herbert Peques
Terry J. Seymour
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS, OFFICERS , REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS,
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF KENTILE, INC.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT request Kentile , Inc., to discharge any employee except as
permitted by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner attempt to cause Kentile , Inc., to dis-
criminate against any employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
any rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except as such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended.
LOCAL 457, UNITED RUBBER , CORK, LINOLEUM AND
PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 745 Fifth
Avenue , New York, New York, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if they have any ques-
tion concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Sperry Gyroscope Company, Division of Sperry Rand Corpora-
tion and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers , AFL-CIO, and its affiliated Local 470, Petitioners'
Sperry Gyroscope Company and International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers, C .I.O., and Local 450, Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
C.I.O., Petitioner
Sperry Gyroscope Company, Division of The Sperry Rand Cor-
poration and Local 450, International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, C.I.O., Petitioner . Cases Nos.
2-RC-12651, ?-RC-1804, and 2-RC-3118. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION AND
CLARIFYING CERTIFICATIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, in Case No. 2-RC-12651, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Haywood E. Banks. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing were free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
1 The names of the Employer and the Petitioners in Can No. 2-RC-12651 appear ao
amended at the hearing.
147 NLRB No. 135.