Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 901 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 901
Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc. and Display, Fixture, Smoking
Pipe, Plastics and Production Workers Union , Local 2682, affili-
ated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters , AFL-CIO and
District 50, United Mine Workers of America , Party to the
Contract
Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc., Bent Glassworks , Inc., and
Glass Guild , Inc. and Display, Fixture, Smoking Pipe, Plastics
and Production Workers Union , Local 2682, affiliated with
United Brotherhood of Carpenters , AFL-CIO and District 50,•
United Mine Workers of America, Party to the Contract . Cases
Nos. -2-CA-8007 and 2-CA-8094. February. 7, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER-
On November 16, 1961, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding, that
the Respondents had-engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease: and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth inthe• Intermedi-,
ate Report attached hereto: Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions- of Section- 3 ('b) of the- Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire recbrd•in.the case;'
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
• • ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of 'the Trial Examiner
with the provision that paragraph 2(d) read : "Notify the Regional
Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith." 1
' The following paragraph is added to the notice:
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office (745 Fifth
Avenue, New York 22, New York; Telephone Number Plaza 1-5500) if they have
any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Display, Fixture , Smoking Pipe , Plastics and Production
Workers Union , Local 2682, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters,
135 NLRB No. 97.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 2682 or the Carpenters Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board , by the Acting Regional Director for the
Second Region, issued his consolidated amended complaint, dated August 30, 1961,
against Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc., herein called Respondent Madison,
and against Bent Glassworks, Inc., herein called Respondent Bent, and against
Glass Guild, Inc., herein called Respondent Glass, and herein collectively called
the Respondents. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in
substance, that Respondents (1) laid off seven-named employees for specified
periods because of their membership in and assistance to Local 2682; (2) warned
and directed employees to refrain from remaining members of and giving any as-
sistance or support to Local 2682 or they would close down their operations; (3)
threatened employees with discharge and other reprisals if they remained members
of Local 2682 and gave any assistance and support to it; and (4) thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act. In their duly filed answer, Respondents admit the layoff of the
seven-named employees for the specified periods but deny, generally, all unfair labor
practice allegations.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Louis Libbin, the duly designated
Trial Examiner, at New York, New York, on October 9 and 10, 1961. All parties
appeared and were represented and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to engage
in oral argument before the close of the hearing . Respondents' motion to dismiss
the complaint, made before the close of the hearing and upon which I reserved
ruling, is hereby denied in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein made.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Respondents , New York corporations with their principal 'office and place of
business in the Borough of Queens in New York, New York, are engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of mosaic tile trays, bent and decorated glass,
and related products. At all. times material herein, Respondents have been affiliated
businesses with common officers, ownership, directors, and operators, who formulate
and administer a common labor policy affecting the employees of Respondents.
During the past year, which period is representative of their operations generally,
Respondents manufactured , sold, and distributed products , valued in excess of
$50,000, which were shipped to points located in States other than New York.
Upon the above-admitted facts, I find, as Respondents admit in their answer,
that Respondents constitute a single integrated business enterprise engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The admitted evidence shows, and I find, that the Charging Party, herein called
Local 2682 or the Carpenters Union, and District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, herein called District 50, each are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the issues
Prior to May 1961 , Madison Glass Specialty Co., Inc ., herein sometimes called
Respondent Madison, operated a plant in Bronx, New York, where it manufactured
mosaic tile giftware such as ashtrays , cigarette boxes , cheeseboards , and other table
items . At the same time , Bent Glassworks , Inc., herein sometimes called Respondent
Bent , operated a plant in Queens , Long Island , New York, where it manufactured
glassware items. The production and maintenance employees at the Bronx plant,
herein sometimes called mosaic employees , were covered by a contract with Local
2682 , herein sometimes called the Carpenters Union , the Charging Party herein.
This contract contained a 30-day union-security clause and was for a term ending
February 28, 1962 . The employees at the Queens plant were covered by a contract
with District 50 This contract contained a 60-day union -security clause.
About the middle of May 1961 the Madison operation began moving from the
Bronx plant to the Queens plant , occupied by Respondent Bent . At that time there
were 3 male and 5 female production mosaic workers at the Bronx plant; about
MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 903
50 to 60 production and maintenance employees were employed at that time by
Respondent Bent. The move took about 2 weeks before a temporary setup was
arranged at the Queens plant. During this period the female mosaic workers were
laid off and the male employees were used in the actual physical move of 'the plant
to Queens. About June 2 the production of mosaic work was resumed at temporary
quarters in the Queens building occupied by Respondent Bent, and the female
workers were then recalled,' the Bronx plant was completely shut down. All seven
mosaic employees then working at the Queens plant were members of Local 2682.
The issues in this case arose out of the controversy concerning the union mem-
bership and representation of the mosaic employees working at the Queens plant
as a result of the transfer of the Madison operation from the Bronx. These issues
were whether Respondents discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of
employment of the mosaic employees and threatened them with economic reprisals
because of their continued adherence to Local 2682 in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1 ) of the Act.
B. Sequence of events 3
In May 1961, prior to the commencement of the move of the mosaic operation
from the Bronx plant , Respondents' officers met with District 50 representatives to
inform them of the contemplated move. District 50 was represented at this meeting
by a shop committee, Vincent Giordano, the president' of the Local who was also
employed by Respondent Bent as a maintenance worker at the Queens plant, and
Jim Lawler, a national representative . The Respondents were represented by Presi-
dent Fox and Vice President Mildwoff . The question arose as to which union would
represent the mosaic workers when they would be employed at the Queens plant.
District 50 took the position that its contract covered all the employees working on
the premises and that the mosaic workers would have to become members of
District 50 .3 Fox asked under what circumstances the mosaic workers would be
accepted as members and whether their seniority and other rights would be re-
spected . Mildwoff asked if District 50 would waive the initiation fee. District 50
agreed to accept the mosaic workers as transferred employees , with no initiation fee,
and without loss of seniority, on condition that they become members of District 50
as soon as they started to work at the Queens plant . District 50 remained adamant
on this condition . Fox replied that the employees should be given the privilege
of making up their own minds and that the Respondents were not going to get
involved in the employees ' union selection .4
When the transfer of the mosaic operations to the Queens plant was about com-
pleted , Giordano received permission from Mildwoff to talk to the mosaic employees
about joining District 50. Early in June he talked to the three male employees who
were engaged in the physical operation of setting up the mosaic department , explained
about District 50 representing all the employees on the premises and that the ` mosaic
employees would be accepted into membership without an initiation fee and without
loss of seniority if they signed up then . He also asked them to sign dues checkoff
cards. At that time, they indicated a willingness to do so . On June 6 , he again
spoke to the three male employees and also to two of the female mosaic workers
present at the same time. He told the female employees that District 50 would ber
the only union at the plant, that they would be accepted into membership without
initiation fees and with no loss of seniority if they joined within a few days, and
that otherwise they would have to come in as new employees and pay an initiation
fee and start as new employees with respect to seniority. Marie Henry, the shop
stewardess of Local 2682 who had just been recalled to work that day, replied that
she would take it up with her union delegate and listen to what he told her. None
of the mosaic workers signed the proffered checkoff cards.
Giordano then reported to Mildwoff, Respondents' vice president, complaining
that Mildwoff had agreed to notify the mosaic employees that they would have to
join District 50 before they could work in the Queens shop. Mildwoff urged
Giordano to give it a little time, explaining that it was up to the union committee
to do that and that he did not want to get involved. Giordano also contacted Lawler,
1 Only four female employees resumed work at the Queens plant. Forelady Jackson,
the fifth female employee , did not resume work because of pregnancy.
2 Unless otherwise indicated , the factual findings in this section are based on credited
evidence and testimony which is either admitted or uncontradicted
'The contract with District 50 contained a 60-day union-security clause
4 The findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of the mutually consistent
testimony of Giordano, Fox, and Mildwoff, the only witnesses who testified with respect
to this meeting
'904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
District 50's national representative , who came to the plant and conferred with
Respondents' representatives. Lawler explained what he thought should be done
with respect to approaching the mosaic employees, all of whom were members of
Local 2682.
' Mildwoff thereupon had all the mosaic employees assembled during working hours
.in the office of Keating, Respondents' factory superintendent. Also present were
Keating and Giordano, the president of District 50. Mildwoff told the employees
that District 50 had offered to waive the initiation fee and to accept them as full
:fledged members, without loss of seniority, if they became members right away.
Giordano then spoke up, stating that he had been telling the employees the same
.thing, and pointed out that if they did not join immediately they would be treated as
new employees required to pay an initiation fee and having no seniority. The only
,employee who said anything was Marie Henry, the shop stewardess of Local 2682.
She stated that she was not going to make any commitments until she had first spoken
to her union delegate. -
During the next few days, Giordano and Lawler spoke again to the mosaic employ-
ees in an unsuccessful effort to get them to join District 50, at once.
President Fox had been ill in 1961 until about the middle of May. On Thursday
morning, June 8, he was at home and made a telephone call to his office. Prezioso,
president of Local 2682, told Fox over the telephone that his workers were being
-threatened by management,, Fox replied that he knew nothing about it. Marie
Henry, the stewardess of Local 2682, was then called to the telephone. Fox stated,
-"Marie, . I'm having a lot of trouble and I'm not well, and I would like for you
,all to join this other union so we can get this cleared up." Marie Henry replied that
Mr. Fox "would have to talk it over with my president," that "we have a contract"
and that "we 'are going to live up to that contract." Mr. Fox stated that "we should
use commonsense about this," that "we all worked for a living," and that he will have
to close down the shop if they.did'not,join this union. Marie'Henry replied that
-she could not help that and that Mr. Fox "will have to take it up with Mr. Prezioso." 5
When the employees were paid on June 9, the checks received by the female mosaic
-employees did not include pay for Memorial Day when they were on layoff status.
Marie Henry took the matter up with Larry Dolnick, the production manager or
-foreman of the mosaic department. •Dolnick stated that Mr. Mildwoff did not author-
ize the holiday pay. Marie Henry replied that she felt they were entitled to it, and
-asked for permission to speak with Mr. Mildwoff. Dolnick thereupon accompanied
Henry to Mildwoff's office.
Marie Henry asked Mildwoff why they did not get their holiday pay. When Mild-
woff indicated that he did not think it was proper for them to receive that pay, Marie
Henry stated that she would have to speak to her union and to Mr. Prezioso. Mild-
woff thereupon exclaimed' that he did not want to hear Mr. Prezioso's name or the
-Union mentioned again, and threatened to close down the Madison operation and get
rid of the Madison employees. Mildwoff then authorized the bookkeeper to give
-the female mosaic employees a check for the holiday pay.
The hours for the mosaic employees at the Queens plant were from 7 a.m. to
3:30 p.m. On Friday, June 9, Dolnick'asked the mosaic employees to work one-half
hour overtime. About 3:30 that same afternoon Mildwoff told Dolnick that there
was no business and to lay off all the mosaic workers'. ' 'Dolnick remonstrated that
they had orders to get out and that there was a certain amount of work to be done.
Mildwoff retorted that he was ordering Dolnick to lay off all the employees. Dolnick
6-The findings in the preceding paragraph relating to the telephone conversation between
Fox and Marie Henry are based on the credited testimony of Marie Henry. On direct
-examination, Fox denied telling Marie Henry, either directly or indirectly, which union
to join or threatening her with any consequences if she did not join one or the other
-union. He recalled speaking to Marie Henry over the telephone and testified that "I think"
that "she asked me for advice . . . that's my recollection at this time I may be mis-
taken And I told her that she had the God given sense that was due to any human
being, that she ought to be able to use her own judgment This is the only thing that
I recall " On cross-examination , he admitted that during the telephone conversation with
Marie Henry he "might have" said something to her about "union trouble" but that he
,did not "exactly recall." In response to a question by the General Counsel as to whether
he did not tell Marie Henry that he "would close down all operations if this union trouble
persisted," Fox further admitted that "I may have said that. I may well have said that.
-It was not very far from any of our minds "
In view of Fox's admittedly poor recollection as to just what was said in this telephone
conversation and his admissions as to what he "may well have said ," I credit the testimony
, of Marie Henry and find that, in substance , Fox made the statements set forth in the text.
MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 905,
did as he was ordered, and informed the mosaic employees that they were being laid.
-off indefinitely at the end of the day 's work. All the laid-off mosaic workers were-
still members of Local 2682.
,On Monday morning, June 12, Bernard Ulano, attorney for Local 2682, had a
conversation with Lee Epstein , attorney for Respondents , with respect to reinstating
the mosaic employees . Epstein agreed to see what he could do about it. Epstein then
telephoned Mildwoff who agreed to reinstate the male employees , stating that he had
work for the men but not for the women . Epstein relayed this information to-
Ulano. The three male mosaic employees resumed work at the Queens plant on
Monday afternoon , June 12.
On Wednesday , June 14, Giordano and Lawler , representing District 50, met with
Respondents ' President Fox and Vice President Mildwoff. Only the male mosaic,
employees were working, the female employees still being in a layoff status. During.
the meeting Giordano made the comment that the other union had a shop stewardess,
having reference to Marie Henry, and that he did not know why she was not working
at the plant when her people were there . At that point Fox stated that he did not
want to hear her name mentioned, that they planned to rehire some of the employees.
when it got busy, but that he would not rehire Marie Henry "because since she became-
shop stewardess her head got a little too big for her."
Respondents admit in their answer to the complaint that of the four female employ-
ees who were laid off on June 9, two were first recalled on June 22 , one was recalled,
on June 29 , and Marie Henry was not recalled until August 2, 1961.
C. Discrimination with respect to hire and tenure of employment
The General Counsel contends , as alleged in the complaint , that the layoff of all:
mosaic workers on June 9, 1961 , as well as for the periods admitted by Respondents,
was motivated by the employees ' continued adherence to Local 2682 and refusal to.
joint District 50. The Respondents contend that the layoffs were due to lack of-
orders and lack of business and that the employees were recalled in accordance with.
seniority as soon as work became available . President Fox testified that the period
in May-June is definitely a slack time , and that the July-August trade shows are in,
preparation for the Christmas trade which runs from August to the latter part of-
November and accounts for 65 to 70 percent of the annual volume of business.
Elstein , Respondents' controller , testified that business is at one of the lowest ebbs.
in June because it is right after the spring season and before the beginning of the-
fall season , that in June 1960 there were only two or three production employees on,
the payroll, and that only about 5 percent of the total years' business is done during-
the combined months of May and June.
However , Dolnick , who continued to be production manager of the mosaic depart-
ment after its transfer to the Queens plant, credibly testified that when he was,
ordered to lay off all the mosaic workers on June 9, 1961, there was enough work on
hand to fill orders for immediate delivery to keep all the mosaic workers busy for at
least another week. Moreover , the record further shows that during slack periods.
mosaic workers are to some extent engaged in building up inventory . Thus, Fox
admitted that in June or July the mosaic workers were engaged in the manufacture-
either of samples or inventory in anticipation of some activities in August and Sep--
tember. And Elstein admitted that Respondent Madison also manufactures items.
that are put in stock as standard items in the mosaic line, and that such items were
not manufactured in May 1961 because of the moving operations but were begun
to be manufactured again after they got set up in the Queens plant. Finally, the-
fact that sufficient work was available to reinstate the three male employees the
following Monday afternoon is proof positive that the shutdown of the entire mosaic-
operations on Friday afternoon, June 9, was not primarily motivated by lack of work.
On the other hand, the record shows that upon the transfer of the mosaic opera-
tions from the Bronx to the Queens plant, Fox and Mildwoff found themselves in the
middle of a controversy between District 50 and Local 2682 for the representation
and membership of these workers . I have no doubt but that Fox and Mildwoff had'
no preconceived intentions of favoring District 50 in this controversy or of coercing-
the mosaic employees into joining District 50 but desired to have the unions and the
employees settle this matter among themselves . Giordano , president of District 50,
admitted that he had the mosaic employees ready to sign up with his union until
Marie Henry came into the picture and insisted on consulting her union delegate-
before making commitments.
When the Respondents were unsuccessful in having the matter settled by the unions.
themselves or by some outside authority , Fox and Mildwoff became agitated by the-
`906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
continuance of the union controversy in the plant and were irritated with Marie
Henry 's conduct in this connection . Thus, in the June 8 telephone conversation, Fox
informed Marie Henry that he was ill and was having a lot of trouble, pleaded with
her to use commonsense about this matter, and expressed a desire that they all join
this other union , referring to District 50, so that they could get all this trouble cleared
up. When Marie Henry persisted that Fox would have to take the matter up with her
union president and that they intended to adhere to their contract, Fox stated that he
would have to close the shop down if they did not join the other union . Fox admitted
at the hearing that the thought of closing down all operations "if this union trouble
persisted" was "not very far from any of our minds" at that time . The following
day, June 9, when Mildwoff at first turned down Marie Henry's grievance concerning
the failure of the female mosaic workers to receive pay for Decoration Day, Marie
Henry stated that she would have to take it up with her union and Prezioso , the presi-
dent . At this point, Mildwoff became so exasperated that he warned her not to
mention her union or Prezioso 's name again and threatened to close down the mosaic
operation and to get rid of the mosaic employees . That afternoon , despite Production
Manager Dolnick 's remonstrance that there were orders to be gotten out and a
certain amount of work to be done, Mildwoff ordered Dolnick to lay off all the
mosaic workers indefinitely. Mildwoff admitted in his pretrial affidavit that "on
that Friday I was so agitated by the demands of both unions that I decided to shut
down the whole mosaic operations until there was some clarification and peace."
The following Monday afternoon the three male employees were reinstated . Counsel
for Respondents conceded at the oral argument that the record supported a finding
that the layoff was discriminatory as to these three employees . Finally, it was not
disputed that at the meeting with District 50 on June 14, Fox told Giordano that he
did not want to hear Marie Henry's name mentioned again , and that while he planned
to recall some of the employees he did not plan to rehire her "because since she
became shop steward her head got a little too big for her."
Upon consideration of the foregoing and the entire record as a whole, I am con-
vinced and find that, while business was slack , Respondents' decision to close down
the mosaic operations and to lay off all the mosaic workers on June 9 , 1961, was
primarily motivated by the union controversy in the plant created by the mosaic
workers' continued adherence to their own union , Local 2682, and their failure to be-
come members of District 50. The General Counsel is willing to concede that upon
being employed at the Queens plant the mosaic workers became part of the unit
covered by District 50's contract, which contained a 60-day union-security clause.
However, during this 60-day period the mosaic workers had a statutory right to refuse
to join District 50 and to remain members of Local 2682 , without being penalized for
exercising that right . Respondents ' conduct in shutting down the mosaic operation
and laying off the mosaic workers , for the periods herein set forth ,e because of this
union controversy penalized the mosaic workers for exercising this right. It is im-
material that Respondents were caught in a controversy between two unions and had
in good faith, albeit unsuccessfully, sought to have the controversy resolved . For, it
has long been settled that the Act permits of no immunity because of economic
pressures or the exigencies of the moment .7
By the foregoing conduct, Respondents discriminated with respect to the hire and
tenure of employment of Emilio Diaz , Frank Campos , Henry Naylor, Addis O'Neil,
Rosa Morales, Anne Mosely, and Marie Henry, thereby discouraging membership
in Local 2682 and encouraging membership in District 50, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
D. Interference , restraint , and coercion
I find , as alleged in the complaint , that under the circumstances disclosed by the
record Respondents independently interfered with, restrained, and coerced the em-
ployees in the exercise of their statutory rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, (a) by President Fox's statement to Marie Henry during the telephone con-
versation of June 8, that he would have to close the shop down if they did not join the
other union, referring to District 50, and (b) by Vice President Mildwoff's conduct
on June 9 in warning Marie Henry not to mention her union or the president's name
9 They were recalled on the following date: Diaz, Campos, and Naylor on the afternoon
of June 12; O'Neil and Morales on June 22 ; Mosely on June 29 ; and Marie Henry on
August 2
7 See, a g ., N L R.R. v Star Publishing Co , 97 F. 2d 405, 470 (C.A. 9)
MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC. 907
again while at the same time threatening to close down the mosaic operation and to
get rid of the mosaic employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the mosaic employees were discriminatorily laid off for the
periods previously specified, I will recommend that Respondents make them whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by payment to each of them a sum
of money equal to the amount he or she normally would have earned as wages
from 7 a.m. on June 12, 1961, to the time of reinstatement or the date of Respond-
ents' offer of reinstatement, as previously specified, less his or her net earnings
.during said period, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
I will also recommend that Respondents preserve and make available to the Board
or its agents , upon request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay.
The circumstances under which Respondents violated the Act in this case and
-the entire record convince me that no danger exists that Respondents will commit
.other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act. I therefore will not recommend
.a broad cease-and-desist order.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 2682 and District 50 are each labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
2. -By discriminating with respect to hire and tenure of employment and thereby
discouraging membership in Local 2682 and encouraging membership in District
-50, and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights under -the Act, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that Madison Glass Specialty
Co., Inc., Bent Glassworks, Inc., and Glass Guild, Inc., New York (Queens), New
York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging or encouraging membership in a labor organization by dis-
criminatorily shutting down an operation or -laying off any of their employees or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or -tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees with the closing of the plant and loss of their jobs
if they did not join a designated labor organization, or in any like or related manner
interfering with, 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 modified, by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. -
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) 'Make whole Emilio Diaz, Frank Campos, Henry Naylor, Addis O'Neil, Rosa
Morales, Anne Mosely, and Marie Henry in the manner set forth in "The Remedy"
section of this Intermediate Report.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, as set forth in "The
Remedy" section of this Intermediate Report.
(c) Post at its place of business in New York (Queens), New York, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall after being duly signed
by the Respondents' representatives, be posted by them immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by them for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20'
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondents
have taken to comply herewith.9
8 In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations 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 "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order "
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read • "Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations 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 discourage or encourage membership in a labor organization
by discriminatorily shutting down an operation or laying off any employees or
by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment, within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the closing of the plant and loss
of their jobs if they did not join a designated labor organization, nor will we
in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our 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 modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL make whole the following employees for any loss of earnings suf-
fered as a result of their layoffs:
Emilio Diaz Rosa Morales
Frank Campos Anne Mosely
Henry Naylor Marie Henry
Addis O'Neil
MADISON GLASS SPECIALTY CO., INC., BENT
GLASSWORKS INC., AND GLASS GUILD, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.