Manhasset Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 443 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MANHASSET MOTORS, INC. 443
(b) Notify Ray Marruffo and B. W. Horn Company in writing that it has no
objection to the employment of Marruffo in any capacity satisfactory to Horn and
that it requests Horn to return Marruffo to the employment from which he was
discharged.
(c) Post at its offices in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix." Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Re-
spondent be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that such notices :are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in writing within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
what steps have been taken in compliance.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless on or before 20 days from the date of
receipt of this report, the Respondent notifies the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
'Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause B. W. Horn Company to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw our objection to the continued employment of Ray Mar-
ruffo and request that he be returned to the employment from which he was
discharged.
WE WILL make Ray Marruffo whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act except in conformity with
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
LOCAL 1070 OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
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.
Manhasset Motors, Inc. and Local 868, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America ; Ind. Case No. 2-CA-82.11. May 31, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 22, 1962, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent 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 the Intermediate Report
attached hereto . Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a. supporting brief.
137 NLRB No. 50.
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as its Order.
1 We hereby correct the following inaccuracy in the Intermediate Report, which does not
materially or substantially affect the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, or recom-
mendations Under "III E, Refusal to bargain," contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find
that the record shows that Leonard Shiflin did not identify himself to Respondent's vice
president, Abraham Schibuk, until shortly before Shiflin departed from the Respondent's
showroom.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 29 U.S. Code, Section 151 et seq. (herein called the Act), was heard
pursuant to notice before Trial Examiner Best at New York, New York, on Janu-
ary 15 and 16, 1962, with all parties represented. Based upon a charge filed on
October 16, 1961, and an amended charge filed on November 16, 1961, by Local
868 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America (herein called the Union or Local 868) against Manhasset Motors, Inc.
(herein called the Respondent), the General Counsel issued a complaint on Novem-
ber 17, 1962, alleging unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act. Respondent filed an answer thereto, denying all alleged
violations and contesting the majority status of the Union to represent its employees
as bargaining representative.
The principal issues litigated were whether the Respondent on or about October
11, 1961, (1) interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; (2) refused to bargain with the Union
as bargaining representative of employees in an appropriate unit; and (3) discharged
Ralph Glotzer (employee) to discourage membership in a labor organization. Due
consideration has been given to oral argument of all parties and to the written brief
submitted by counsel for the Respondent. No written brief was filed by the Gen-
eral Counsel.
From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Manhasset Motors, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of New York, maintaining its principal office and
place of business at 1225 Northern Boulevard , Manhasset , county of Nassau, New
York, where it operates a licensed Ford agency , and is engaged in the sale and dis-
tribution of new and used automobiles and related products . During the past year
in due course of business , the Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 , and during the same representative period purchased , transported, and
received at its aforesaid place of business automobiles , accessories , goods, and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50 ,000 from outside the State of New York. I find,
MANHASSET MOTORS, INC. 445
therefore, that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Officials and supervisors of the Respondent, within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act, included Sam Brod (president, treasurer, and general manager), Abraham
Schibuk (vice president and secretary), and Mario Librizzi (sales manager).
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act, existing in whole or part for the purpose of representing employees
in dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, and conditions of work.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit
The Board has held' and I find that "All new and used car salesmen at the
Employer's Manhasset, New York, establishment, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, service salesmen, parts and accessories salesmen, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act," constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
B. Designation of the bargaining representative
At all times material to this case, the aforesaid appropriate unit consisted of seven
car salesmen employed by the Respondent, including Allison K. Brooks, George
Botti, Paul Carolla, Ralph Glotzer, Louis N. Iorio, Edward Persandi, and Les
Rauber. On or about October 9, 1961, Salesman Persandi called by telephone and
arranged with Business Representative Leonard Shifrin of Local 868 to meet repre-
sentatives of the car salesmen in Peter Luger's Restaurant, Great Neck, New York,
at approximately 10 p.m. on October 10, 1961, for the purpose of discussing union
representation. Five of the salesmen attended this meeting, where the Union was
represented by Business Representatives Shifrin and Brucker. Following a confer-
ence for approximately 2 hours, these five salesmen, representing a substantial ma-
jority in the appropriate unit, signed applications for membership in the Union,
which specifically designated Local 868 of the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as their representative
for purposes of collective bargaining. These authorization cards were individually
filled out and signed by Allison K. Brooks, Paul Carolla, Ralph Glotzer, Louis N.
Iorio, and Edward Persandi. Prior to adjournment of the meeting, Business Repre-
sentative Shifrin prepared and dispatched to the Respondent, a telegram, as follows:
This is to advise you that we represent a majority of your automobile salesmen
employees and request an early appointment to negotiate a collective bargaining
agreement.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The foregoing telegram from the Union was delivered to the office of Respondent
at 8:30 a.m. on October 11, 1961, and in due course was received by President Sam
Brod, who occupied a desk in the same room with Vice President Abraham Schibuk.
On this particular day Brod came in to work at 9:30 a.m. Schibuk did not reach
his office until noon, being delayed by visiting the sales lots of wholesale used-car
dealers en route, and does not remember whether he and Brod dined together at
lunch time. In any event, Brod informed Schibuk within 20 or 30 minutes after
his arrival as to what had happened with respect to the union telegram.
After receiving the union telegram, President Brod made an investigation by calling
into his office or otherwise approaching individual salesmen and interrogating them
concerning their participation in the organizational activities. Brooks, Iorio, and
Persandi admitted to him that they had signed up with the Union. There is no
evidence that Carolla was interrogated or present at the showroom that morning.
George Botti and Les Rauber disclaimed attendance at the union meeting and denied
signing a union card. Brooks and Iorio also indicated to President Brod that they
would withdraw their affiliation with the Union, but now deny telling him that they
did not desire representation by the Union. Persandi also denied making any
1 Lownsbury Chevrolet Company, 101 NLRB 1752; Weaver-Beatty Motor Co., 112
NLRB 60-63.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statement that he did not want the Unicn to represent him. Brooks proposed to
resign from his job, if the Union came in . It is contended by President Brod that
Ralph Glotzer had already been called in prior to receipt of the union telegram, and
discharged for reasons entirely foreign to the organizational activities, because of
alleged failure to produce business as a saleman, refusing to follow instructions about
making telephone calls to prospective customers, and for insulting his employer.
D. The discharge of Ralph Glotzer
With the approval of President Brod, Ralph Glotzer was hired as a car salesman
by Sales Manager Librizzi on or about September 28, 1961, and thereafter reported
for work on Saturday, September 30, 1961. His past affiliation with the Union was
well known to the Respondent by reason of prior employment in the New York
area with the Levitttown Ford Agency and the Gotham Ford Agency, where union-
shop conditions prevailed. After employment by the Respondent, Glotzer and
fellow salesmen worked according to a schedule prepared by Sales Manager Librizzi,
requiring daily hours of work in the showroom from 9 a.m. to 3 p m. and from 3 p m.
to 11 p.m. on alternate days. All salesmen were paid a salary of $50 per week plus
commissions from their respective sales of new and used automobiles. Hence, they
were expected to promote sales during off-duty hours by soliciting prospective cus-
tomers by telephone and otherwise under the direction of President Sam Brod. These
salesmen were not represented by a labor organization, although Respondent had
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with another union with respect to
its shop employees. Following the renewal of his affiliation with Local 868 at the
meeting on the night of October 10, 1961, Glotzer was on the next day, October 11,
1961, called into the office by President Brod and summarily discharged. Reasons
for this discharge must be determined from all the facts and circumstances and the
sharply conflicting testimony of the parties involved therein.
Ralph Glotzer credibly testified in substance that his schedule for work at the
showroom of Respondent on October 11, 1961, was from 3 to 10 p m.; consequently
he remained at home past noon on that date to have lunch with his family, and pro-
ceeded to work in his car at approximately 12:30 p.m.; that his wife and mother- in-law
(Lillian Klaie) traveled with him en route to the store of Abraham & Strauss in
Hempstead, New York, from which he continued to drive alone in his car, and arrived
at the showroom of Respondent in Manhasset, New York, between 1 and 1:15 p.m.;
that shortly after arrival, President Sam Bred called him into the office, where, in the
presence of Vice President Abraham Schibuk, Brod accused him of being a union
organizer, the moving force in organizing Manhasset Motors, Inc., upsetting the
entire sales crew, and reviled him as a "Bowery Bum," and asserted that he did not
need a guy like that coming in to organize the place; that Brod kept pounding the
table, gave him no opportunity to make any reply, then followed him into the show-
room with repeated accusations, and finally told him to come back on Friday to get
his paycheck. Glotzer then left the premises, and reported this incident by telephone
to the union business office.
Lillian Klaie (mother-in-law) credibly testified in substance that she was residing
as a visitor with her daughter (Mrs. Glotzer) in the home of Ralph Glotzer during
the period October 10-14, 1961, having come there to spend the Columbus Day
holiday (October 12); that during the morning of October 11, 1961, she observed
Ralph Glotzer around the house from about 10 a.m. until noon, when they all sat
down together for lunch; that at approximately 12:30 p.m. Glotzer started to work
in his car, and transported herself and daughter en route to a shopping center in
nearby Hempstead , New York.
President Sam Brod testified in substance that approximately 2 days prior to the
discharge he reproached Ralph Glotzer for not selling enough cars, gave him a list
of prospective customers, and told him to work extra hours for 2 nights making
telephone solicitations and reporting the results thereof; that on the night of October
10, 1961, Glotzer disappeared from the showroom prior to 9:30 p.m. without making
any report, so he decided to fire him the next day; consequently, Glotzer was called
to the office about 10 or 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 1961, to discuss the
situation . According to Brod, he then said to Glotzer:
Listen, Glotzer, you are supposed to make calls last night, and you just took
off. What do you think? It is not right. I am the boss, and I want you to
produce, and, if you are not going to produce, you are not going to follow my
orders, you are not going to work for me.
Whereupon, Glotzer replied:
What are you talking so fast to me? I am not afraid of what you are telling
me, because you are going to hear very good news soon. I am in the Union
MANHASSET MOTORS, INC. 447
now, and you are going to hear from the Union soon. I am not going to work
for a bum like you.
Thereupon, he (Brod) told Glotzer to get out; that Glotzer went out into the
showroom, became very noisy, and demanded his pay; and was told that he could
either come back on Friday to get it or receive a check by mail. Brod further testified
that Vice President Schibuk came in and inquired "what is going on here?"-that
he explained the situation to Schibuk, who then walked out into the showroom and
said to Glotzer: "Listen, don't make any noise. If we owe you, you are going to
get paid . Come in Friday, or we will mail you a check."
Brod testified further that he later inquired of his manager whether any telegrams
had been received; thereupon, he opened his mail and found therein the aforesaid
telegram from the Union about 11 or 11:30 a.m. along with others delivered by the
telegraph company; that after reading the telegram, he called in Edward Persandi
and Allison K. Brooks to inquire what it was all about and whether they had signed
up with the Union, which they admitted; but Brooks said he would quit if Respondent
negotiated with the Union; that Louis Iorio came in voluntarily about an hour later,
said he had also signed up, but had changed his mind and informed the union man to
that effect; that he also talked to Botti and Rauber, who disclaimed any affiliation
with the Union.
E. Refusal to bargain
Respondent has never made any formal reply to the union telegram requesting an
appointment to negotiate concerning a collective-bargaining agreement. It is con-
tended by Respondent that the Union immediately lost its majority status by reason
of disclaimer by the salesmen on the morning of October 11, 1961. At approximately
2 p.m. on October 11, 1961, Business Representative Shifrin entered the showroom
of Respondent, and first engaged in conversation with Salesman Edward Persandi,
who related to him the discharge of Ralph Glotzer and interrogation of other sales-
men by President Sam Brod. Observing a commotion at one of the salesmen's desks,
Vice President Schibuk went out to investigate. After identifying themselves to each
other, Shifrin somewhat indignantly said to Schibuk: "You just fired an American
citizen for joining a union. Put him back to work." Without further inquiry on
the subject, Schibuk ordered Shifrin to leave the premises; and Shifrin departed with
the rejoinder: "You haven't heard the end of this. I am going to put this into the
Labor Board, and I am going to put a picket line here."
Vice President Abraham Schibuk testified in substance that he spent the morning
of October 11, 1961, visiting used-car lots of wholesale dealers in the Bronx and
elsewhere, en route to work, and did not arrive at his Manhasset establishment until
noon; that at the time of his encounter with Shifrin, he had no knowledge of the
union telegram or the firing of Ralph Glotzer; but was later informed by President
Brod as to what had occurred; whereupon, they jointly decided to make no reply
to the telegram because the salesmen had indicated that they were not interested in
representation by the Union.
Concluding Findings
It is noted that President Sam Brod testified in substance that Ralph Glotzer was
discharged for inefficiency as a salesman at about 10 a.m. on October 11, 1961, prior
to receipt of the union telegi am, and that Vice President Schibuk was present at the
time participating in conversation with Glotzer in the showroom before he left the
premises. To the contrary, Schibuk testified that he did not arrive at his office until
noon that day, and had no knowledge of the telegram or discharge of Glotzer prior
to the arrival of Business Representative Shifrin in the showroom about 2 p in. It
is admitted, however, by President Brod that his interrogation of salesmen other than
Glotzer occurred after the telegram was received From a preponderance of the
evidence and under the peculiar circumstances of this case, I find that the interroga-
tion on October 11, 1961, of Salesmen Allison K Brooks, George Botti, Louis N.
Iorio, Edward Persandi, and Les Rauber concerning their organizational activities
was designed to destroy the union majority status established by the signing of au-
thorization cards by a majority in the appropriate unit on the night of October 10,
1961, and constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The contention of Respondent
that such interrogation is permitted as free speech by Section 8(c) of the Act is
untenable.
With respect to the discharge of Ralph Gotzer, I discredit the testimony of Presi-
dent Sam Brod and Vice President Abraham Schibuk, and credit the testimony of
Ralph Glotzer (corroborated by Lillian Klaie) to the effect that such discharge oc-
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
curred at approximately 1:30 p.m. on October 11, 1961, with full knowledge of and
after receipt of the union telegram requesting recognition and an appointment to
negotiate with respect to a collective-bargaining agreement. A preponderance of
the evidence herein does not support the contention of Respondent that Glotzer was
indifferent and not producing sales during the short period of 12 days employed by
Manhasset Motors, Inc. Documentary evidence introduced as General Counsel's
Exhibits Nos. 4A, B, C, D, E together with other credible testimony shows that
on October 2, 1961, he negotiated the cash sale of one new 1962 Ford Van at the
price of $2,195 to Eclipse Supply Company, Inc., subject to an exchange allowance
of $323 for one 1956 Ford station wagon. This transaction was referred to him
as a "House Deal" by the Respondent, and delivery was delayed by reason of ship-
ment of the new car from the factory. On October 4, 1961, he consummated an-
other cash sale of one new 1962 Ford station wagon to Gloria Kliegman at the
price of $3,414, as to which delivery was delayed by shipment from the factory.
On October 7, 1961, he negotiated a tentative sale of one new 1962 Ford Falcon to
Miss Ann J. Alecks at the price of $1,787, obtained a deposit of $10 thereon, but it
appears that the purchaser changed her mind and refused to accept delivery. On
October 7, 1961, he also negotiated a sale of Henry Ernstthal of one new 1962 Ford
Galaxie at the price of $3,408 with trade-in allowance of $1,183, and delivery was
completed on October 10, 1961. On October 9, 1961, he negotiated the sale of one
1961 Ford Thunderbird to Robert Block (a minor), which was thereafter delivered
on October 13, 1961, with the consent and endorsement of Gabriel Block (father of
the minor). In addition to the foregoing transactions, Glotzer negotiated two other
sales as to which delivery was not completed, because the purchasers failed to make
adequate deposits required by the Respondent Several such transactions were pend-
ing at the time Glotzer was summarily discharged on October 11, 1961 Neither do
I credit the testimony of President Sam Brod that Glotzer insulted his Employer
by calling him a "bum" during the discharge interview of October 11, 1961. The
further contention of the Respondent that Glotzer had been hired on a tiial basis
as a temporary employee is not material to the issues in this case
I am, therefore, constrained to find that Ralph Glotzer was discharged by the
Respondent on October 11, 1961, because of his concerted activities with other em-
ployees for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection;
and that the Respondent thereby discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment to discourage membership in a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
From all the evidence in this case, it is crystal clear that on October 10, 1961,
a majority of employees in the appropriate unit selected and designated the Union
as their respresentative for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act Had the Respondent entertained any bona fide doubt
of this fact, it should have at least given the Union an opportunity to present proof
of its majority status. In reply to a request to bargain, Respondent interrogated the
employees involved, summarily discharged one of the leaders in the organizational
effort, abruptly denied the business representative an interview, and thereafter ignored
the Union's telegraphic demand for recognition and negotiations. It would be dif-
ficult to envision a more emphatic refusal to bargain such irate conduct engaged
in by the Respondent. I find, therefore, that on October 11, 1961, and at all times
since said date, the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with Local 868, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind . as the duly designated and exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the unit herein found to be appropriate within the meaning of Section
9(a) and (b) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
TV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of Respondent set forth in section III, above, has a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent on and since October 11, 1961, engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Having found that the Respondent on October 11, 1961, discriminated in regard
to the hire or tenure of employment of Ralph Glotzer (salesman) to discourage
membership in a labor organization, it will be recommended that Respondent offer
MANHASSET MOTORS, INC. 449
this employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva-
lent position 2 without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges of
employment, discharging if necessary any other person hired by the Respondent to
replace him, and make him whole for any loss of pay and commissions he may have
suffered by reason of such discrimination by the payment to him of a sum of money
equal to that which he would have earned as wages, salary, and commissions from
the date of his discriminatory discharge on October 11, 1961, to the date occurring
5 days after the Respondent shall offer him proper reinstatement, as herein provided,
less net earnings 3 to be computed on a quarterly basis according to method and
formula prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the backpay liability for
any other such period.
Having found that the Respondent since on or about October 11, 1961, has re-
fused to bargain with the Union as exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act, it will
be recommended that Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively (as defined in
Section 8(d) of the Act) with Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., as such representative,
and when an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a written
agreement.
Past conduct of the Respondent indicates future recurrences of such interference,
restraint, and coercion; therefore, it will be further recommended that the Re-
spondent cease, desist, and refrain from in any manner infringing upon the rights
of its employees to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection or to refrain from any or all 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) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act; and has been at all times material to this case, and still is the duly
designated and exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the unit
found in section III-A, above, to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
2. By interrogating Salesmen Brooks, Botti, Iorio, Persandi, and Rauber concern-
ing their affiliation with the Union, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Ralph Glotzer (salesman) on October 11, 1961,
to discourage membership in the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
4 By refusing at all times since October 11, 1961, to bargain with Local 868,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind., as found above, the Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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 in
the case, I issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Manhasset Motors, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their concerted activities on behalf of
Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor organization.
2 Sep, The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puei to Rico, Bi anch,
65 NLRB 827
3 See- Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 479-488
649856-63-vol. 137-30
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Discouraging membership in Local 868, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor
organization, by discharging, threatening to discharge, or in any manner discriminat-
ing in regard to the hire, tenure, or condition of employment of any employee.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively (as defined in Section 8(d) of the Act) with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Ind., as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the
unit herein found to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(d) In any manner infringing upon, interfering with, restraining or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with Local 868, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of "All new and used car salesmen at the
Employer's Manhasset, New York, establishment, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, service salesmen, parts and accessories salesmen, guards,
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act," and when an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a written agreement.
(b) Offer to Ralph Glotzer immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges of employment; and make him whole in the method and manner set forth
in section V, above, entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for
inspection and reproduction, all payroll records, timecards, personnel files, social
security reports, and all other documents and book records relevant or necessary to
compute the amount of backpay and commissions and to determine related rights and
privileges pertaining to the proper reinstatement of Salesman Ralph Glotzer by the
Respondent, as herein provided.
(d) Post in the showroom and shop at its establishment in Manhasset, New
York, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material?
(e) Notify the said Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within
20 days from receipt of this Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply therewith.5
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing within 20 days, as aforesaid, that it will comply with the fore-
going recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring
compliance therewith.
4 In the event 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."
5In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read' "Notify said Regional Director in writing within 10 days from
the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Nation? ' Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their organizational
activities or in any manner infringe upon, interfere with , restrain , or coerce
them in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join or assist
SHEAR'S PHARMACY, INC. 451
any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all 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) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL upon request, bargain collectively with Local 868, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Ind., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit herein found
to be appropriate, consisting of
All new and used car salesmen at the Employer's Manhasset, New
York, establishment, excluding all other employees, office clerical em-
ployees, service salesmen , parts and accessories salesmen, guards, watch-
men, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 868, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.,
or any other labor organization by discharging any employee or otherwise
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or con-
dition of employment.
WE WILL offer to Ralph Glotzer immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, and make him whole for any loss of
pay and commissions he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination.
MANHASSET MOTORS, 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.
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.
Shear's Pharmacy, Inc. and Frances Budnick and Retail Drug
Employees' Union Local 1199, Retail, Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract
Retail Drug Employees' Union, Local 1199, Retail, Wholesale
and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO and Frances Budnick
and Shear's Pharmacy, Inc., Party to the Contract. Cases Nos.
2-CA-6363 and O-CB-0442. May 31, 1962
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 31, 1960, the National Labor Relations Board issued a
Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that
the Respondent, Shear's Pharmacy, Inc., violated Section 8 (a) (3),
(2), and (1) of the Act and that the Respondent, Local 1199, violated
Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act, and ordering the Respond-
ents to cease and desist from 'such unfair labor practices and to take
certain affirmative action, as set forth therein. Thereafter, the Board
petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for enforcement of
its Order. On May 18, 1961, the Board filed in that court a motion
2128 NLRB 1417.
137 NLRB No. 44.