Marchese Metal

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 293 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

MARCHESE METAL
MMIC, Inc. d/b/a Marchese Metal and Shopmen's
Local Union 455, International Association of
Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO. Cases 29-CA-10055, 29-CA-
100055-2, and 29-RC-5791
30 April 1984
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 30 June 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Howard Edelman issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
I In deciding whether a bargaining order under NLRB v. Gissel Pack-
ing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), is appropriate in this case, Chairman Dotson
has considered the Respondent's proffered evidence concerning subse-
quent changes in its work force. At the hearing the Respondent offered
evidence of employee turnover following the election. The judge reject-
ed the evidence for lack of relevancy. Chairman Doston finds employee
turnover is a relevant factor in determining whether a bargaining order is
warranted, and he has taken into account the Respondent's offer of proof
that it hired two additional employees shortly after the election. The
record therefore shows that there were seven unit employees at the time
of the hearing, five of whom were eligible to vote in the I November
1982 election. However, having considered this factor in conjunction
with all the surrounding circumstances Chairman Dotson is unable to
find any significant mitigation of the adverse impact of the Respondent's
unfair labor practices on employee rights. In making this ssessment,
Chairman Dotson relies on the egregious nature and pervasive extent of
the violations, particularly the threat to close the plant, the grants of ben-
efits, and the discharge of two leading union adherents Chairman Dotson
also notes the small work force involved and the prominent role of the
Respondent's president in the misconduct. Based on the foregoing, and in
view of the Union's acquisition of majority support prior to the com-
mencement of the Respondent's extensive misconduct, Chairman Dotson
finds that a bargaining order is justified.
Member Hunter notes that while he does not necessarily concur with
the position of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the rel-
evance of turnover, even assuming that turnover is a relevant factor he
agrees that a bargaining order is warranted here for the reasons set forth
by the Chairman above.
Chairman Dotson does not adopt the judge's interpretation of Gserl
Packing, suprs, with respect to the issuance of nonmajority barg ining
orders where outrageous and pervasive unfair labor practices have been
committed.
In the ·bsence of exceptions thereto, Chairman Dotson adopts pro
forms the judge's findings that Dennis Marchese threatened employees
by stating that he would close the shop if the employees had signed
union cards because he could not pay the Union's rtes, and that Marche-
se created the impression of surveillance by telling employee Dashner
that he knew Dashner voted against the Union and employee Teskowich
voted for it. Chairman Dotson also adopts pro forms the judge's finding
that, despite the lack of a specific allegation in the complaint, the Re-
spondent unlawfully discharged employee Casaine on 2 October 1982.
The Respondent excepts to the provision in the judge's remedy which
requires that Casaine be offered reinstatement. The Respondent contends
that such provision is not appropriate because Casaine declined an offer
of reinstatement made by the Respondent after the close of the hearing.
In view of the limited record evidence concerning the matter, we shall
leave the issue of Casaine's reinstatement to the compliance phase of this
proceeding.
270 NLRB No. 51
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, MMIC, Inc. d/b/a Marchese Metal,
Ronkonkoma, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Order as modified.
1. Insert the following paragraph as 2(c) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(c) Remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discharges of Francisco Casaine and Mi-
chael Teskowich and notify them in writing that
this has been done and that the discharges will not
be used against them in any way."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director
for Region 29 shall within 10 days from the date of
this decision open and count the ballots of Victor
Buono, Keith Hernandez, and Francisco Casaine in
Case 29-RC-5791, and prepare and serve on the
parties a revised tally of ballots. If the revised tally
reveals that the Petitioner has received a majority
of the valid ballots cast, the Regional Director
shall issue a Certification of Representative. If the
revised tally shows that the Petitioner has not re-
ceived a majority of the valid ballots cast, the Re-
gional Director shall set aside the election results,
dismiss the petition, and vacate the proceedings.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OP THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
293
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten representatives of Shop-
men's Local Union 455, International Association
of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, with bodily injury in the presence of
employees.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning
their membership in or activities on behalf of the
Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our shop if the
Union is selected as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative by our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees
because of their membership in or activities on
behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT coerce our employees to renounce
their membership in the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees various
benefits, including medical coverage, wage in-
creases, and paid vacations in order to induce them
to abandon membership in the Union or cease ac-
tivities on its behalf or to induce their vote in any
NLRB election.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases in order to
induce our employees to abandon their membership
in the Union or their activities on its behalf or to
induce their favorable vote in an NLRB election.
WE WILL NOT deny our employees wage in-
creases or other benefits previously promised to
them because of their membership in or activities
on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT assign our employees to more ar-
duous and less agreeable job tasks because of their
membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union or any other labor
organization by discharging employees, by assign-
ing them more arduous work, or by otherwise dis-
criminating against them in their hire or tenure.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of all our full-time production
and maintenance employees at our Ronkonkoma,
New York location, excluding all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Francisco Casaine full and im-
mediate reinstatement to his former job or substan-
tially equivalent position of employment, without
prejudice to his seniority or to other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Michael Teskowich and
Francisco Casaine for any loss of earnings they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them, with interest.
WE WILL notify Michael Teskowich and Fran-
cisco Casaine that we have removed from our files
any reference to their discharges and that the dis-
charges will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain
with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit
described above with respect to wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
written agreement.
MMIC, INC. D/B/A MARCHESE METAL
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me on March 14, 1983, in Brook-
lyn, New York.
On October 1, 1982,1 Shopmen's Local Union 455,
International Association of Bridge, Structural & Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union) filed a peti-
tion for an election in MMIC, Inc. d/b/a Marchese
Metal (Respondent). Thereafter, pursuant to a consent
election executed by Respondent, an election was held
on November 1, in a unit consisting of all full-time pro-
duction and maintenance employees employed by Re-
spondent. Following the election, a tally of ballots was
served upon the parties. As a result of challenged ballots,
the results were not determinative.
On November 8, the Union filed objections to the con-
duct of the election in Case 29-RC-5791 and a charge in
Case 29-CA-10055. On December 29, the Union filed a
charge in Case 29-CA-10055-2. The charges alleged vio-
lations within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
of the Act.
On December 30, following an investigation of objec-
tions and challenges in Case 29-RC-5791 and an investi-
gation of the unfair labor practice charges described
above, the Region issued a report on objections and chal-
lenges and an order consolidating cases, complaint and
notice of hearing. In this report, the Regional Director
concluded that the allegations set forth in the unfair
labor practice complaint were coextensive with the exist-
ing objections and it was ordered that the objections be
consolidated with the outstanding complaint herein. The
thrust of the complaint is that by engaging in threats, in-
terrogations, promises of benefit, etc., alleged to be viola-
tions of Section 8(aXl) and by discriminatorily assigning
employees arduous job tasks and discharging employees,
alleged as violations of Section 8(a)(3), Respondent has
precluded the holding of a fair rerun election, and has
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union.
I All dates are 1982 unless otherwise indicated.
294
MARCHESE METAL
Briefs were filled by counsel for the General Counsel,
counsel for the Charging Party, and counsel for Re-
spondent. Based on a consideration of the entire record,
the briefs, and my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Jurisdiction
At all times material herein, Respondent has main-
tained its principle office and place of business in Ron-
konkoma, Long Island, in the State of New York where
it is, and has been at all times material engaged in the
manufacture and installation of ornamental iron products.
During the calendar year 1981, which period is repre-
sentative of its annual operations generally, Respondent
in the course and conduct of its business operation pur-
chased and caused to be transported and delivered to its
Ronkonkoma facility, iron, and other goods and materi-
als valued in excess of S50,000, of which goods and ma-
terials valued in excess of S50,000 were transported and
delivered to it, and which were received from other en-
terprises, including, inter alia, Morgan Steel Corporation
located in the State of New York, each of which enter-
prises has received the said goods and materials in inter-
state commerce directly from State of the United States
other than the State in which said enterprise is located.
Respondent admits, and I find that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.2
B. Labor Organization
Respondent admits, and I find that the Union is, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
C. The Appropriate Unit
In the petition filed by the Union in Case 29-RC-5791,
the parties entered into a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election approved by the Regional Direc-
tor in a unit consisting of "all full time all office clerical
employees ... employed by Respondent ... excluding
all office clerical employees professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." Respond-
ent admits and I find the above unit is an appropriate
unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The parties further stipulated that as of October 1, Re-
spondent employed five employees in the above unit.
These five employees were Francisco Casaine, Michael
Teskowich, James Dashner, Victor Buono, and Tim
Clark.
· The complaint in this case originally alleged jurisdiction for the fiscal
year ending July 1, 1982. Respondent denied in its answer the Board's
jurisdiction on this basis. During the course of the hearing, counsel for
the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to set forth the juris-
dictional period as "during the calendar year 1981." This motion was
granted notwithstanding Respondent's counsel's objection to such amend-
ment. Respondent thereafter admitted jurisdiction based on a calendar
year period.
D. The State of Dennis and Joseph Marchese
The testimony of Anthony Marchese established that
the sole share-holders, officers, and directors of Re-
spondent are Dennis and Anthony Marchese. In Dennis
Marchese's capacity as a corporate officer and director,
he has authority to hire and fire employees, responsibly
direct and assign work, and is in general, in charge of
the day-to-day operations of Respondent facility. Joseph
Marchese, the father of Dennis and Anthony is neither a
shareholder, officer, or director of the corporation. He
performs all the layout work for Respondent but re-
ceives no compensation for such work. The testimony of
employees Casaine, Teskowich, and Dashner establish
that Joseph Marchese does assign work to employees
and checks their work. On one occasion in October
1982, Marchese granted employee Dashner time off for
emergency leave. Additionally, Joseph Marchese rehired
employee Casaine and Teskowich following their dis-
charge by Dennis Marchese on October 2 and 3, respec-
tively. He also told employee Dashner on several occa-
sions that Respondent could not give him a promised
raise because of the pending union campaign.
Under these circumstances, I conclude that Dennis and
Joseph Marchese are agents of Respondent acting on
their behalf. Devine Foods, 235 NLRB 190 (1978); Superi-
or Casting Co., 230 NLRB 1179 (1977); Indian Head Lu-
bricants, 261 NLRB 12 (1982).
E. The Union's Organizational Campaigns
Antonio Schifano, business agent for the Union, testi-
fied that sometime during the last week in September,
Frank Casaine telephoned the Union and questioned
Union Representative Johnny Bell about union represen-
tation. Bell informed him that he would mail Casaine a
supply of union authorization cards and instructed him to
distribute the cards to the employees for them to fill out
and sign. Additionally, a union meeting was scheduled
for September 30.
Frank Casaine testified that shortly after his conversa-
tion with Bell, he received a supply of union authoriza-
tion cards in the mail. He immediately read one of the
cards, filled it out, and signed it. Casaine authenticated
' The General Counsel called Union Representative Anthony Schifano
and employees Francisco Csaine, Michael Teskowich, and James
Dashner as witnesses. I was extremely impressed with their demeanor.
Their testimony was moat detailed, and quite candid and forthright.
Moreover, their testimony on direct examination was consistent with
their testimony on cross-examination. Their testimony established an in-
tensive antiunion campaign encompassing extensive and varied allep-
tions, described below. I do not believe they would have the imagination
or inventiveness to fabricate such detailed and complex testimony. Re-
spondent failed to call any witness to contradict the testimony of the
General Counsel's witnesses as to all of the 8(XI) allegations alleged, or
the 8(aX3) allegations concerning the discriminatory discharge of Casine
and the discriminatory assignment of arduous work to Casaine and
Teskowich. In this connection, Respondent's only witness could have
been Dennis Marchese. Respondent counsel stated during the hearing
that Dennis Marchese was unable to testify on the day of the hearing be-
cause he was ill. However, Respondent counsel did not request an ad-
journment so as to enable Dennis Marchese to testify at a later date.
I therefore credit the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses
concerning those allegations relating to and involving Dennis Marchese,
which are described below.
295
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his authorization card at the hearing. His card is dated
September 29.
Casaine testified that on September 29 he gave em-
ployee Tim Clarke a union authorization card, and in-
formed Clarke that the purpose of the card was to enable
the Union to represent him. He observed Clark read the
card, fill it out, and sign the card. Thereafter, Clarke
turned over his signed authorization card to Casaine.
Clarke's authorization card is dated September 29.
Casaine further testified that following distribution of
the union card to Clarke, he distributed a card to em-
ployee Mike Teskowich. He told Teskowich the purpose
of this card was to enable the Union to represent him.
He observed Teskowich fill out, date, and sign the card,
which Teskowich immediately returned to Casaine.
Teskowich fully corroborates Casaine's testimony con-
cerning his authorization card.
Still later on September 29, Casaine distributed to em-
ployee Jim Dashner, a union authorization card. He in-
formed Dashner that the Union had mailed him these
cards, and asked him if he cared to fill it out, Dashner
took the card from Casaine and left. Dashner credibly
testified that following his receipt of the card from Ca-
saine, he read it over, fill it out, sign it and return it to
Casaine on September 30.
Dashner's card is dated September 30.
Schifano testified that on September 30, in the
evening, he and Union Representative John Bell met
with employees Casaine, Teskowich, and Clarke in a
local restaurant located about a mile from Respondent's
facility. At that time Casaine handed Schifano the four
signed and dated union authorization cards described
above. Schifano thereafter informed the employees that
based on the cards submitted to him, he would contact
Respondent and ask them for recognition, and that if Re-
spondent refused recognition, the Union would file a pe-
tition for an election with the National Labor Relations
Board. During the remainder of the meeting, Shifano
spoke to employees about the benefits the Union would
attempt to obtain for the employees.
On October 1 at 10:30 a.m., Schifano arrived at Re-
spondent's facility and introduced himself to Dennis
Marchese, Respondent's president. He told Marchese
that the Union represented a majority of his employees
and demanded recognition. Dennis Marchese angrily told
Schifano the Union would never get in, and with that
picked up a 4-foot length of iron pipe. He advanced
toward Schifano and told him that if he did not leave, he
would get this, gesturing with the pipe, over his head.
At this time employee James Dashner appeared at the
office door. Dashner testified that he saw Marchese and
Schifano and heard Marchese yell "Get out of here, I
know who you are. Do you want the pipe." He contin-
ued yelling at Schifano, "Do you want the pipe." Sever-
al times. At the time of this incident, Dashner had not
been introduced to Schifano. Schifano thereafter left Re-
spondent's premises.
On October 1, following Schifano's visit, the Union
sent Respondent a telegram which set forth as follows:
This is to confirm the oral advice given to you
this date, that Shopmen's Local Union No. 455 of
the International Association of Bridge, Structural
& Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, has been
designated by a majority of your production and
maintenance employees as their collective bargain-
ing agent. We are accordingly requesting a meeting
with you for the purpose of negotiating an agree-
ment. If you have any doubt of our majority status,
we would be willing to submit the same to an im-
partial independent body without delay. Please call
the undersigned on receipt of this telegram.
Shortly after Schifano left, Francisco Casaine testified
that Dennis Marchese approached him and questioned
him as to whether he had any ties with the Union. Ca-
saine said that he did not. Marchese then stated that
some goon from the Union had come in to see him and
he chased him out with a pipe.
I conclude that by threatening a union representative
with serious bodily injury in the presence of employees
(Dashner) and that by informing employees (Casaine) of
such conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l1) of the
Act. Jay Dee Transportation, 243 NLRB 638, 640 (1979).
I further conclude that Dennis Marchese's questioning
of Casaine as to whether he had any ties with the Union,
immediately following the Union's demand for recogni-
tion was an attempt to illicit information from Casaine
concerning his views and activities relating to the
Union's organizing campaign. I find such questioning
clearly constituted coercive interrogation in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Packer Industries, 228 NLRB
182, 184 (1977).
Casaine, Teskowich, and Dashner testified that some-
time during the afternoon of October 2, Dennis Marche-
se assembled all production employees in the shop.
Present with Dennis Marchese was his father Joseph and
brother Anthony. Dennis then proceeded to read to the
assembled employees, the Union's demand telegram de-
scribed above. When he had completed reading the tele-
gram, he asked the employees if they had signed any-
thing with the Union. He told the employees that if they
had, he would close the shop because he could not pay
the union rates. He then asked the employees whether
they were for the Union or against the Union.
Teskowich replied that he would go with the Union be-
cause they had been good to him in the past. Dennis
Marchese replied that he would have to talk to him
about this later and see exactly where he stood. This
ended the meeting.
I conclude that Marchese's questioning of the employ-
ees as to whether they had signed anything with the
Union and whether they were for or against the Union,
viewed in the context of this meeting and Respondent's
course of conduct throughout the Union's campaign con-
stitutes unlawful interrogation in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Calcite Corp., 228 NLRB 1048, 1054
(1977). I also conclude that Marchese's statement that he
would close the shop if the employees had signed union
cards because he could not pay the Union's rates consti-
tutes an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Byrd's Terrazzo & Tile Co., 227 NLRB 866 (1977).
The testimony of Dashner and Casaine establish that
on October 2, sometime following the meeting described
296
MARCHESE METAL
above, Dennis Marchese called Casaine and Dashner to
his office. In the office, he showed them a yellow pad
that had a handwritten statement which stated to the
effect that the employees were satisfied with conditions
in the shop and did not want union representation. After
the employees had read the contents, Marchese asked
them to write their own letter renouncing the Union as
their bargaining representative. He told them that he
wanted such letters executed and signed immediately or
it would be the end of their jobs.
I conclude that by demanding employees to renounce
the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(aX1) of the
Act. Providence Medical Center, 243 NLRB 714, 715
(1979). I further conclude that by threatening them with
a loss of their jobs unless such letters of renunciation
were executed, Respondent additionally violated Section
8(aX1) of the Act.
During this same discussion, Dennis Marchese showed
Dashner and Casaine Blue Cross Blue Shield forms and
said that the employees would be getting these cards to
fill out. At that time Respondent provided no medical
benefits for its employees. Anthony Marchese, the only
witness called by Respondent, testified that sometime in
late August or early September, prior to the union orga-
nization, he had made some inquiries about Blue Cross
health insurance. However, as of the date of this hearing,
Respondent had not implemented any health plan for its
employees. Both Casaine and Dashner testified that nei-
ther Dennis nor Anthony Marchese had ever spoken to
them about possible medical coverage before this. In
view of the timing of the promise to grant health bene-
fits, in view of the nature of Respondent's intense and ex-
treme antiunion campaign described above and below, in
view of the absence of any documentary evidence that
Respondent had determined to initiate a plan prior to the
union campaign, I find this conduct to be an unlawful
promise of benefit in violation of Section 8(aX1) of the
Act. NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409
(1964).
Immediately following this discussion, Casaine told
Dennis Marchese that before he would sign a union re-
nunciation letter, he wanted to speak with his daughter
about it. Marchese replied that if Casaine did not sign it
"right now," he should get out of his shop. Casaine im-
mediately left Marchese's office and packed his personal
tools. When they were packed, he located Anthony Mar-
chese and asked him to check him out to make sure he
was not taking any company tools. As Casaine was leav-
ing the premises, Dennis Marchese stated, "He's the one,
he must be the organizer." At this point Joseph Marche-
se, Dennis' father, asked Dennis Marchese to give Ca-
saine another day to think about the letter, and if he did
not sign it by then, he should do what he had to do. An-
thony Marchese then told Casaine if he wanted a day to
think about signing the letter he could have it. Casaine
put back his tools and returned to work.
I conclude that by ordering Casaine out of the shop
because of his refusal to sign a letter repudiating the
Union as his bargaining representative, Marchese effec-
tively discharged Casaine in violation of Section 8(aX)(1)
and (3) of the Act. It is clear to me, as it was to Casaine,
that Marchese's statement "Get out of my shop," consti-
tuted a discharge and that such discharge was the direct
result of Casaine's refusal to execute a letter renouncing
the Union. Accordingly, I conclude that by such con-
duct Respondent discharged Casaine in violation of Sec-
tion 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act.4
The testimony of Dashner established that on the
evening of October 2, Dennis Marchese visited Dashner
at his home. Marchese spoke with Dashner about the
days' events concerning the Union and during this con-
versation he told Dashner that Teskowich had expressed
loyality to the Union and that he, Marchese, felt he was
the Union's organizer. At this point he stated, "You
know that's the end of Michael (Teskowich) no matter
what; in the morning he will be gone." Marchese then
told Dashner that rather than giving him a $2 raise he
was promised when he was hired in June 1982, he was
going to give him a $3 raise instead.
I conclude that the promise of the additional S1 raise
initially made during the union campaign constitutes an
unlawful promise of benefit in violation of Section 8(aXl)
of the Act. Exchange Parts, supra.
The testimony of Teskowich established that on Octo-
ber 3, Teskowich arrived at the shop about 7:30 in the
morning, his usual starting time. Upon his arrival, Antho-
ny Marchese came over to him and told him that Dennis
wanted to see him in the office. Teskowich went to the
office where Dennis Marchese was present. Marchese
opened his checkbook and handed Teskowich a prewrit-
ten check for the pay he had earned thus far during the
week. He handed the check to Teskowich and told him
he could go on unemployment if he wanted. Teskowich
left the shop without saying a word. Anthony Marchese
testified that Teskowich was laid off because work was
generally slow and there were not sufficient jobs avail-
able. I do not credit Marchese's testimony. Marchese of-
fered no documentary proof as to the validity of Re-
spondent economic defense. Moreover, I was entirely un-
impressed with Marchese's demeanor. His testimony was
frequently vague and evasive and unsupported by docu-
ments one would normally expect an employer to possess
in connection with such defense.
I conclude that Teskowich was discharged for his
membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. The
facts establish that Teskowich was a union member, and
that he informed Dennis Marchese of his activities on
behalf of and his support of the Union during the em-
ployee meeting on October 2. Moreover, Marchese
during his evening visit to the home of Dashner had in-
formed Dashner that he believed Teskowich to be the
union organizer and that he intended to fire him that
morning because of such activity. The discharge of
Teskowich the following morning, as predicted by Mar-
chese, in the absence of any valid reason for such dis-
charge clearly establishes in my opinion that such dis-
charge was discriminatorily motivated and in violation of
Section 8(aX3).
' The complaint does not allege this incident as an unlawful discharge.
However, CAsaine's discharge is alleged, and the matter was fully litigat-
ed. In view of Casaine's immediate reinstatement, there would be no
backpay liability in connection with this discharge.
- -
297
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The testimony of Dashner established that on October
3, shortly after Dashner reported to work, Dennis and
Anthony Marchese asked him to report to the office.
Once inside the office Dennis Marchese told Dashner
that he had to sign a letter renouncing the Union. He
asked Dashner to write the letter in his own writing and
sign it. Dashner thereupon executed a renunciation letter
renouncing the Union as his bargaining representative,
and give it to Marchese.
Casaine testified that on October 3 he arrived at work
with employee Vic Buono and was summoned to the
office. At this time Dennis Marchese showed both em-
ployees the renunciation letter signed by Dashner and
asked them to sign similar letters which they did.
I conclude that by demanding and obtaining from the
three employees described above, letters renouncing the
Union as their bargaining representative, Respondent
violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act. Providence Medical
Center, supra.
Teskowich, who had been discharged on October 3,
testified that about October 8, he was advised by his wife
that Respondent had called and requested he contact
them. The next morning he called the plant and spoke to
Dennis Marchese who asked him to come to the shop.
Shortly thereafter he arrived at the office and met with
Dennis, Anthony, and Joseph Marchese. Dennis Marche-
se showed Teskowich letters renouncing the Union
signed by employees Jim Clark, Buono, and Casaine and
told him he would like him to sign a similar letter.
Teskowich refused to execute such letter, claiming he
wanted to consult with his attorney first. Joseph Marche-
se asked Teskowich if he wanted his job back.
Teskowich said he did. Joseph Marchese asked if he
could report to work on Monday and Teskowich said he
could if Respondent wanted him back. Joseph Marchese
replied that the Respondent would take him back. On
October 11, Teskowich reported back to work. Upon his
return, Dennis Marchese questioned him as to whether
he had contacted his attorney and was ready to sign the
letter renouncing the Union. Teskowich told Marchese
that he was unable to contact his attorney over the
weekend. Marchese asked him to call his attorney now,
from his office. Teskowich phoned his attorney from
Marchese's office, and following a conversation with his
attorney told Marchese that he would sign a letter re-
nouncing the Union. He executed such letter and gave it
to Marchese.
I conclude that the evidence establishes conclusively
that Teskowich was rehired solely on the condition that
he execute a letter renouncing the Union. I find such
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Provi-
dence Medical Center, supra.
The testimony of Teskowich, Casaine, and Dashner es-
tablish that on October 12, Dennis Marchese assembled
all employees in the shop. He told them that Respondent
was going to provide the employees with medical cover-
age plus 1 week vacation after 1 year employment and 2
weeks after 2 years. He then passed out the Blue Cross
Blue Shield forms to the employees and requested they
fill out such forms. At the time of the Union's organizing
campaign, Respondent provided no vacation benefits for
its employees. Anthony Marchese testified that he in-
formed employees Buono and Dashner at the time of
their hire that they would get a 1-week vacation after I
year; a 2-week vacation after 2 years; and a 4-week vaca-
tion after 5 years. Dashner, Casaine, and Teskowich tes-
tified that they were unaware of any vacation benefits
provided by Respondent and were never informed of
such benefits by Respondent. I credit employees
Dashner, Teskowich, and Casaine. As set forth above, I
found that the above employees credible witnesses.
Moreover, their testimony is mutually corroborative.
Further, as set forth above, I was unimpressed with the
demeanor of Anthony Marchese. In view of the fact that
the medical and vacation benefits were initially promised
to employees during the union campaign, and absent any
evidence that Respondent had plans to implement such
benfits prior to the union campaign, and in view of the
extensive and unlawful antiunion campaign waged by
Respondent, I find the promise of such benefits to be a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Exchange Parts,
supra.
Dashner testified that on October 12, sometime during
the afternoon, he went into the office to hand Dennis
Marchese his Blue Cross card which he had filled out.
At this time he asked Marchese when he would get the
$3 wage increase he had been promised on October 2.
Dennis Marchese told Dashner that he could not give
him a raise at this time because of the Union. Joseph
Marchese who was also present in the office affirmed
Dennis' position. Dennis then stated that they would pay
him a part of the promised raise by advancing him an ex-
pense check to cover certain noncovered personal truck
expenses.
I conclude that the denial of benefits promised, al-
though such benefits had been promised unlawfully in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), constitute an additional vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also conclude that
the promise of benefits in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act. Exchange Parts, supra.
Casaine and Teskowich testified that on October 18,
when Casaine reported for work, Dennis Marchese or-
dered Casaine to to take the "L" brackets of Respond-
ent's forklift and bring them to the front of the yard
which was part of Respondent's facility. These "L"
brackets weighed approximately 100 pounds each. Ca-
saine got a dolly located in the yard used to transport
heavy equipment from one location to another, and put
the "L" brackets on the dolly. Marchese ordered him to
remove the brackets from the dolly and bring them to
the front of the yard by hand, a distance of 75 to 100
feet. Casaine did so, although he testified that the task
was a strenuous one. It should be noted at this point that
Casaine is 62 years of age. Following the completion of
this task, Casaine and Teskowich were then ordered by
Dennis Marchese to push a station wagon parked on the
street outside the Respondent's parking lot into the lot. It
appeared that one or more of the tires was flat. Casaine
and Teskowich tried to push the car along the street and
into Respondent's lot, but were unable to do so. Dennis
Marchese then ordered two more employees to aid
298
MARCHESE METAL
Teskowich and Casaine.5 The four employees were then
able to push the station wagon onto Respondent's lot, to
a location designated by Dennis Marchese. At that point,
Marchese told the employees he wanted the station
wagon moved to a different location in the lot, and the
employees complied. However, Marchese was still not
satisfied, and had the employees push the station wagon
to several other locations before at last, he was satisfied.
The employees then returned to work in the shop.
A few minutes later Dennis Marchese came into the
shop and ordered Teskowich and Casaine to return to
the yard. Marchese pointed to a large pile of 20-foot
steel bars and told them that he wanted the pile moved
from its present location and placed upon storage racks
located in the shop. Casaine and Teskowich picked up
one bar, each employee supporting one end of the bar,
and were about to take it to the shop and store it when
Marchese ordered them to pick up two bars at a time.
They complied with this order, and picking up two 20-
foot steel bars at a time, transported the bars to the stor-
age racks. They returned to the pile and picked up two
more bars. However, Dennis Marchese told them to pick
up three bars instead. They complied with Marchese's
order, picked up the three bars with difficulty, and
placed them in the storage racks. They continued to pick
up three bars at a time until the whole pile was trans-
ferred from the yard to the storage racks. When they
had completed this task, Marchese told them that he had
another job for them to do. He directed them to a similar
pile of steel stock, also located in the yard, and ordered
them to move the stock to another spot in the yard some
10 feet away. The employees proceeded to lift together,
one piece at a time. However, Marchese ordered them to
handle two at a time instead. They complied with Mar-
chese's order and continued in this manner to transport
the stock to its new location until the whole pile had
been moved. When this job was completed Marchese or-
dered them to move the same pile to yet another loca-
tion in the yard, and to pick up three pieces at a time
while performing this task. They complied with Marche-
se's order and moved the stock to the new location pick-
ing up three pieces at a time until the entire stock had
been relocated again.
When they had completed this task, Marchese then di-
rected them to a large pile of 20-foot steel pipe approxi-
mately 1-1/4 inches in diameter and ordered them to
move the pipe from the location in the yard to the stor-
age racks in the shop. There were over 80 lengths of
pipe. The employees picked up one pipe but Marchese
directed them to handle two pipes at a time. They com-
plied with this order and moved the pipe from the yard
into the shop and placed it in the storage racks. When
they returned to pick up their second load, Dennis told
them to pick up three pipes at a time. They did so and
moved the pipes in a similar manner to the storage racks
in the shop. When they returned to the pile to pick up
their third load, Marchese ordered them to pick up four
pipes at a time. Once again they complied and placed the
four pipes in the storage rack. They continued lifting
' There is no evidence on the record as to which additional employees
were assigned.
four pipes at one time until they had lifted over 40
lengths of 20-foot pipe in this manner. At this point, Ca-
saine, who as set forth above is 62 years old, told Mar-
chese he could not lift anymore and complained his heart
was pounding fast and he was afraid for his health. Mar-
chese told him he was "an iron worker and he was sup-
posed to be able to pick up pipe." He then asked Casaine
if he was quitting. Casaine replied he was not quitting
and replied he could pick up two pipes at one time, but
not four. Marchese told him it was his shop and he de-
cides how many to pick up. Casaine replied that he was
worn out and simply could not do it. Marchese shouted
at him that he was quitting and went into the shop
where he shouted to all employees working there that
Casaine was quitting and that he had refused to do as he
had been ordered. Casine followed Marchese to the shop
and told the employees he was not quitting, but that he
physically was unable to do what Marchese had ordered
him to do. Marchese replied, ". . . Frank you're out.
Come in the office I'll give you your check." Casaine
waited outside Marchese's office. A few moments later
Marchese came out, gave Casaine his check and told him
to "shove it up his ass." Shortly after Casaine left, Mar-
chese saw Dashner in the office and stated to him,
"What you think of that. I could have kept that pace up
all day." He then stated to Dashner, "You heard Frank
say he quit." Dashner replied that he had not and Dennis
asked him whose side he was on.
Casaine and Teskowich testified that on other occa-
sions when they had to move large quantities of steel,
they were able to use a wagon, a dolly, or the forklift to
aid them.
I conclude that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Casaine in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of
the Act. The facts of this case establish that Teskowich
and Casaine were the leading union advocates and that
Marchese was well aware of this. The facts further estab-
lish that Respondent had discriminatorily discharged
both Casaine and Teskowich several weeks ago as de-
scribed above. The instant discriminatory discharge is
further established by the nature of the work assignment
on October 18, and the manner by which the employees
were compelled to perform such assignment. In this re-
spect, the employees were required to lift heavier and
heavier loads until they could barely complete the task
while being denied, without any reason, the use of me-
chanical aides usually available to them. The obvious ob-
jection of this sadistic treatment was to compel
Teskowich and Casaine to quit their jobs. This is conclu-
sively evidenced by Marchese's statement, when Casaine
complained that he was unable to continue lifting four
pipes at one time, that he (Casaine) was "quitting."
When Casaine denied that he was quitting and volun-
teered to continue lifting two pipes at one time, Marche-
se told him he was "out." The discriminatory intent to
force Casaine to quit is further evidenced by Marchese's
statements to Dashner when he stated that he could have
"kept up that pace all day"; and by his statement to
Dashner asking whose side he was on, when Dashner
stated that he had not heard Casaine state that he had
quit. That the discharge was discriminatorily motivated
299
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is further evidenced by the extensive unfair labor prac-
tices described above and below, committed by Re-
spondent. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent dis-
charged Casaine in violation of Section 8(aXl) and (3) of
the Act.
I also conclude, in view of the evidence which estab-
lished that the employees had always been permitted to
use mechanical aides to complete similar job tasks, that
the assignment of such work to Teskowich and Casaine
constituted a discriminatory assignment of more arduous
work in violation of Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act.
Dashner testified that sometime prior to the union
campaign, he had requested a week off without pay be-
ginning on October 25 and that Dennis Marchese had
agreed to this. A few days before Dashner was sched-
uled to take the week off, Marchese told him that now he
would have a paid week's vacation and when he re-
turned he would get his $3 raise as promised on October
2. Marchese then cautioned Dashner not to "screw" him
up when he returned from vacation and to "vote the
right way" in the election scheduled for November 1.
This statement by Marchese clearly establishes that the
promise of benefits was for the purpose of influencing
Dashner's vote in the election. Accordingly, I find the
promise of a paid vacation and a raise in pay to be a vio-
lation of Section 8(aX1) of the Act.
Dashner further testified that on November 1, follow-
ing the Board election, he was present with Dennis Mar-
chese in his office. At this time Marchese stated, "I
know how Michael (Teskowich) and you voted because
all the other votes were challenged, so I know you voted
no and Mike voted yes."
I conclude that this statement created the impression
that Respondent was surveilling employee conversations,
meetings, and other union activities where union senti-
ments were discussed, and is a violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
Dashner also testified that on November 3 he was
present in Respondent's office with Joseph and Dennis
Marchese. He asked Joseph and Dennis Marchese about
the $3 raise he had been promised in October. Dennis
Marchese informed him that he could not give him a
raise at this time because of the Union, but that they
would give him extra expense checks for his truck.
Dashner testified that subsequently he did receive several
expense checks as promised. For the reasons set forth
and described above, I conclude that the refusal to grant
Dasher the raise as promised, constitutes a denial of ben-
efits in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act and grant-
ing of the expense checks, a grant of benefits in violation
of Section 8(a)(l). Exchange Parts, supra.
F. The 8(a)(5) Violation
As set forth above, the evidence established that the
Union obtained four valid authorization cards in an ap-
propriate unit consisting of five employees. The only re-
maining issues to be decided is whether in view of the
unfair labor practices committed, described above, a bar-
gaining order is necessary.
The General Counsel contends that a bargaining order
should issue pursuant to the rationale set forth in NLRB
v. Gissel Packing Co., 385 U.S. 575 (1969). In Gissel, the
Supreme Court enumerated three categories of cases in
determining the appropriateness of a bargaining order.
The first category includes those exceptional cases in
which the employer has committed outrageous and per-
vasive unfair labor practices of such a nature that their
coercive effects cannot be eliminated by the application
of traditional remedies, with the result that a fair election
cannot be held. When these circumstances exist, a bar-
gaining order may issue without inquiring into majority
support.
The second category includes those cases in which the
unfair labor practices are less pervasive than the first cat-
egory, but where they nevertheless undermine majority
strength and impede the election process. Under the
second category of cases, the bargaining order may be
appropriate where at one point the union had a majority
status and where there is only a slight possibility of eras-
ing the effects of past unfair labor practices and insuring
a fair election by the use of traditional remedies.
The third category includes those cases where the
unfair labor practices are not sufficiently pervasive to un-
dermine majority strength and impede the election proc-
ess, or where traditional Board remedies will best effec-
tuate the purpose of the Act. In these circumstances, a
bargaining order is not mandated.
I conclude that the unfair labor practices of the instant
case fall within the first category described above. An
analysis of the unfair labor practices committed by Re-
spondent establishes conclusively that they were exten-
sive, exceptional, outrageous, and pervasive; that they
occurred in an exceptionally small unit numbering five
employees, and took place over a short concentrated
period of time of I month, beginning immediatley fol-
lowing the demand for recognition and continuing until
after the election.
Thus, immediatley following the Union's demand for
recognition, Respondent systematically interrogated its
employees as to whether they signed cards for the Union
and their sympathies on behalf of the Union, threatened
to close the shop if the employees obtained union repre-
sentation, discharged the two leading union supporters,
required all employees to execute letters renouncing the
Union under an implied threat of discharge for their fail-
ure to do so, and promised and granted various benefits.
It has long been established that such similar unfair
labor practices are likely to have a lasting and inhibitive
effect on a substantial percentage of the work force and
therefore are considered "hallmark" violations which
support the issuance of a bargaining order. United Dairy
Farmers Assn., 257 NLRB 772 (1981); Highland Plastics,
256 NLRB 146 (1981).
During the course of this hearing, Respondent at-
tempted to introduce evidence establishing substantial
employee turnover since the commission of the unfair
labor practices described above. Respondent contends
that in this connection, the Second Circuit case, NLRB
v. Jamaica Towing, Inc., 632 F.2d 208 (1980), is applica-
ble. Such evidence of turnover was rejected by me.
The Board has consistently held that the validity of a
bargaining order depends on an evaluation of the situa-
tion as of the time the unfair labor practices were corn-
300
MARCHESE METAL
mitted and, therefore, to delete such order on the basis of
employee turnover would reward, rather than deter, an
employer who engaged in unlawful conduct during an
organizational campaign. Accordingly, I conclude that a
bargaining order is justified in view of the serious unfair
labor practices described above. See Highland Plastics,
supra, and cases cited therein.
G. The November I Election
On November 1, 1982, an election was conducted in
Case 29-RC-5791. The tally of ballots indicated an in-
conclusive result; the challenged ballots being sufficient
in number to affect the results of the election. Timely ob-
jections and challenges were filed by the Union.6 In
view of my findings set forth above, that Respondent has
violated Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act in the manner
described above, all of these unfair labor practices taking
place between the filing of the petition on October I and
the election which was held on November 1, I therefore
conclude that these unfair labor practices are more than
sufficient to warrant setting aside the election. Accord-
ingly, I sustain the Union's objections to the extent con-
sistent with the unfair labor practices found herein and
recommend the election be set aside.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent MMIC, Inc. d/b/a Marchese Metal is,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Shopmen's Local Union 455, International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time production and maintenance employees
employed by Respondent at its Lakeland Avenue, Ron-
konkoma, New York facility, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. At all times since October 1, 1982, the Union has
been the exclusive representative of the employees in
said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By threatening union organizers in the presence of
employees with physical bodily harm, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(l).
6. By interrogating its employees concerning their
membership in or activities on behalf of the Union, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By threatening to close its plant if the Union was
selected by the employees as their collective-bargaining
representative, Respondent has violated Section 8(aX)(
of the Act.
8. By threatening to discharge its employees because
of their membership in or activities on behalf of the
Union, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
6 Case 29-RC-5791.
9. By coercing its employees to execute letters re-
nouncing the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, Respondent has violated Section 8(aXl) of the
Act.
10. By promising its employees medical, vacation, and
wage increases to induce them to renounce their mem-
bership in, and cease their activities on behalf of the
Union and to influence their vote in a union election, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
1. By granting vacation benefits and wage increases
to its employees in order to induce employees to re-
nounce their union membership and cease their activities
on behalf of the Union and in order to influence their
vote in connection with the election, Respondent has
violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
12. By denial to its employees of promised wage in-
creases, Respondent has violated Section 8(aXl) of the
Act.
13. By assigning its employees Michael Teskowich and
Francisco Casaine to more arduous and less agreeable
job tasks because of their membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union, Respondent has violated Section
8(aXl) and (3) of the Act.
14. By discharging its employees Michael Teskowich
and Francisco Casaine because of their membership in
and activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent has
violated Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act.
15. By refusing, since on and after October 1, 1982, to
recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the unit de-
scribed above, Respondent has violated Section 8(aX1)
and (5) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in various
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since I have found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Francisco Casaine on October 18, 1982, I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer
him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job,
or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent po-
sition of employment, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges.
I shall recommend that Respondent make whole Fran-
cisco Casaine and Michael Teskowich for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them from the date of their termina-
tion until the dates of their reinstatement.7
Backpay for the above employees shall be computed in
accordance with the formula approved in F. W Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as set forth
in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
I shall also recommend that Respondent expunge from
its records any reference to the unlawful discharges of
Francisco Casaine and Michael Teskowich, to provide
7As set forth above, Michael Teskowich, who was discriminatorily
discharged by Respondent on October 3, was reinstated to his former job
on October 11 without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges.
301
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
written notice of such expunction to Casaine and
Teskowich, and to inform them that Respondent's un-
lawful conduct will not be used as a basis for further per-
sonnel actions concerning them. Sterling Sugars, 261
NLRB 472 (1982).
I shall further recommend that Respondent be ordered
to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining agent of the employees in the unit
found appropriate herein.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed s
ORDER
The Respondent, MMIC, Inc. d/b/a Marchese Metal,
Ronkonkoma, New York, its officers, agents, successors
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening representatives of Shopmen's Local
455, International Association of Bridge, Structural &
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, with bodily injury in the presence of employees.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their member-
ship in or activities on behalf of the Union.
(c) Threatening to close its shop if the Union is select-
ed as collective-bargaining representative by its employ-
ees.
(d) Threatening to discharge employees because of
their membership in or activities on behalf of the Union.
(e) Coercing its employees to renounce their member-
ship in the Union.
(f) Promising its employees various benefits, including
medical coverage, wage increases, and paid vacations in
order to induce them to abandon membership in the
Union or cease activities on its behalf or to induce their
vote in any NLRB election.
(g) Granting of wage increases in order to induce its
employees to abandon their membership in the Union or
their activities on its behalf or to induce their favorable
vote in an NLRB election.
(h) Denying its employees wage increases or other
benefits previously promised to them because of their
membership in or activities on behalf of the Union.
(i) Assigning its employees to more arduous and less
agreeable job tasks because of their membership in and
activities on behalf of the Union.
(j) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf
of the Union or any other labor organization by dis-
charging employees, by assigning them more arduous
work, or otherwise discriminating against them in their
hire or tenure.
s If no exceptions are filed mas provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(k) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
all its full-time production and maintenance employees at
its Ronkonkoma, New York location, excluding all office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(1) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organiza-
tions, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Francisco Casaine full and immediate rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion of employment, without prejudice to his seniority or
to other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make whole Michael Teskowich and Francisco
Casaine for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them in the
manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Recognize and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the appropriate unit described above with respect
to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and other
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed written agreement.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analysis of the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its place of business in Ronkonkoma, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
9 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
302