Miller Charles and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1579 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

MILLER CHARLES AND, COMPANY- _ . ' 1579
I cannot convince myself that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to issue
any remedial order in this case. Such an order would set a bad example that would
only encourage others to like action.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Alexander M. Cutrone , dlbla A. C. Electric; his successor , A. C. Electrical Con-
tracting Corp .; and Supermarket Operating Company are employers engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and
(7) and 8 (b)(4) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of various secondary employers per-
forming services at the Shop Rite store of the Supermarket Operating Company in
-the Mid -Island Plaza Shopping Center at Hicksville ; Long Island , New York, to
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform such serv-
ices, and by threatening , coercing , or restraining Supermarket Operating Company and
such other . persons with the object of forcing and requiring them to cease doing
business with Alexander M. Cutrone, d/b/a A. C. Electric , the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i ) and (ii)
(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
5. By the activities of its agents at the , Roosevelt Field Shopping Center at Garden
City, Long Island , New York , the Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) or (ii) (B) of
the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
I recommend that an order be entered dismissing the complaint.
I also recommend that proceedings be taken against counsel for the Charging
Party pursuant to Section 102.44 (b) of the Board 's Rules and Regulations.
Harold. Miller, Herbert Charles and Milton Charles , Co-Partners,
d/b/a Miller Charles -and Company and Local 463, Interna-
tional Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 2-CA-97f0. October 8, 1961 , .1111,
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 10, 1964, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be
'dismissed as to such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting briefs.
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 Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
148 NLRB No. 158.
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addi-
tions and modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found that a no-solicitation rule promul-
gated by the Respondent was a valid no-solicitation rule. The rule
prohibited "union solicitation on company time and on company
property." Contrary to the Trial Examiner , we are of the opinion,
and find, that the rule as promulgated prohibits union solicitation on
company property even on an employee's nonworking time and could
be so readily understood by the employees. Indeed, it was so under-
stood by Respondent's shop foreman, Harold Wachs, who testified
that the rule prohibited solicitation on company property, as such.
In the absence of evidence of special circumstances to make the rule
necessary in order to maintain production and discipline, we find that
the promulgation of the rule violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act .2
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by the discharge of Vega for an alleged
breach of the no-solicitation rule. The Trial Examiner was of the
opinion that the no-solicitation rule did not apply to the distribution
of literature and that, in the absence of a specific no-distribution rule,
the discharge of Vega for distributing union literature was an inter-
ference with his Section 7 rights and a violation of Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act. It is the Respondent's contention that the no-solicitation
rule was applicable to the distribution of union literature as well as
to oral solicitation and that the application of this rule to prohibit the
distribution of union literature in work areas of the plant was neces-
sary in order to maintain production and discipline .3
The evidence shows that Vega distributed certain union leaflets to
employees during their lunch period in an area of the plant, and at a
table or bench, where, as the Trial Examiner found, it was customary
for the employees on lunch breaks to eat their lunches, read news-
papers, and play cards. Because of the continuous operation of the
machines, employee lunch periods were staggered. Employees on
their lunch period were, however, permitted to leave their machines
and gather at the nearby bench. In our opinion the bench area can-
1 Respondent takes exception to the Trial Examiner's conduct of the hearing alleging
bias and prejudice . We are satisfied on the basis of the entire record that these allega-
tions are wholly without merit
2 Walton Manufacturing Company , 126 NLRB 697, enfd . 289 F. 2d 177 (C.A. 5).
8 The distribution occurred in an area of the plant known as the automatic section
where automatic machines are in continuous operation
MILLER CHARLES AND COMPANY 1581
not be considered a work area within the meaning of Stoddard-
Quirk 4 so as to have justified the adoption of a no-distribution rule
applicable to employees nonworking time. Furthermore, the record
fails to show that the distribution of union literature in such place
and on such occasion would have in any manner endangered produc-
tion or efficiency or created a litter problem.5 Under the circum-
stances, the discharge of Vega for distributing union literature in a
nonwork area, in the absence of special circumstances making the
promulgation of a no-solicitation or no-distribution rule necessary,
was discriminatory and in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of
the Acts Accordingly, we find that by the discharge of Vega, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts, as its
Order, the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders
that Respondents, Harold Miller, Herbert Charles and Milton
Charles, Co-Partners, d/b/a Miller Charles and Company, Mineola,
New York, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the fol-
lowing modifications :
1. Add the following as a new paragraph 1(b) and renumber the
previous paragraph 1(b) as 1 (c) :
"Promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing a rule prohibiting em-
ployees during nonworking time from engaging in union solicitation
on Respondent's property or distributing union literature in nonwork-
ing areas of Respondent's plant." 7
2. Add the following paragraph as paragraph 2(b), the present
paragraph 2(b) and those subsequent being consecutively relettered :
"(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement
4 Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615
5 Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation of Georgia, 85 NLRB 1439, 1440, footnote 4.
6 See Willow Maintenance Corp , 143 NLRB 64. In support of its claim that Vega vio-
lated the rule the Respondent asserts that he offered a union leaflet to employee Hill who
at the time was at work attending the automatic machines. Hill refused to take the
leaflet. The Trial Examiner found that Vega did not "give" a leaflet to Hill Whether
this isolated act of attempted distribution would justify a finding that Vega violated a
valid no-distribuiton rule we need not decide for it is evident that Vega was discharged
for distributing union literature at a location which we have found to be a nonworking
area.
7 While agreeing with the finding that the distribution of union literature occurred in
a nonworking area of Respondent's plant and that employee Vega's discharge under the
circumstances of this case was unlawful, Members Fanning and Brown adhere to the
position taken by them in their dissent in Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Company, supra,
to wit, that an employer may not prohibit employees from distributing union literature
in working areas during nonworking time.
I
1582 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and
the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces."
3. Add the following to the Appendix to the Trial Examiner's
Decision as its second paragraph :
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain, or enforce a rule pro-
hibiting employees during nonworking time from engaging in
union solicitation on Respondent's property or distributing union
literature in nonworking areas of our plant.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed December 19, 1963, by Local 463, International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, a com-
plaint was issued on January 31, 1964, alleging that the Respondents, Harold Miller,
Herbert Charles and Milton Charles, Co-Partners, d/b/a Miller Charles and Com-
pany, herein sometimes called the Company, have engaged in and are engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the
Act. The complaint alleges, in substance , that on December 18, 1963, Respondents
discharged, and thereafter have refused to reinstate , Gerardo Vega because he dis-
tributed campaign literature on behalf of the Union and otherwise assisted the Union
and that Respondents maintained in effect and enforced a rule which prohibits their
employees from engaging in union solicitation on company time and on company
property. Respondents' answer to the complaint denies that they had engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in this proceeding was held before Trial
Examiner Herbert Silberman in New York, New York, on March 19 and 20, 1964.
At the hearing I granted a motion to dismiss the allegations of the complaint which
plead that Respondents have violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by maintaining in
effect S and enforcing a no-solicitation rule. Respondents ' motion made at the con-
clusion of the hearings to dismiss the complaint for failure of proof is disposed of in
accordance with the findings and conclusions made below . Brief's have been received
from the General Counsel and from Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Respondents , a copartnership , are engaged at their plant in Mineola , New York,
in the manufacture , sales, and distribution of screw machine parts, aircraft hardware,
and related products Respondents annually sell and ship products valued in excess
of $50,000 from their plant in the State of New York to points outside said State.
Respondents admit, and I find, that they are engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events leading to the discharge of Vega
The single issue in this case is whether Gerardo Vega violated a no-solicitation
rule, promulgated by the Company in June 1963, by distributing leaflets for the Union
in the operating areas of the plant. The distributions were made on December 17,
1963, to employees in the shipping department during their coffee break and to
employees in the secondary department and the automatic section of the machine
shop at lunch time. The usual lunch period at the plant is from 12:30 p.m . to 1 p.m.
and at 3 p.m. there is a coffee break . The employees are released from work during
a
MILLER CHARLES AND COMPANY 1583
such periods except for employees in the automatic section. The machines in that
section operate continuously during the entire workday and the six or seven employees
in the automatic section stagger their lunch and break periods. The Company per-
mits their employees , including the employees in the automatic section , to eat lunch,
read newspapers , and play cards in the vicinity of their work stations during their
lunch periods and coffee breaks.
The Union began its campaign to organize Respondents ' employees in April 1963.
Gerardo Vega was active in this effort and obtained signed authorization cards from
16 Spanish speaking employees . (Many employees in the plant do not speak or read
English .) The Company's reaction to the organizational drive resulted in an unfair
labor practice charge being filed against it by the Union about July 3, 1963, and a
complaint in the proceeding so initiated being issued on August 19. A Trial Exam-
iner's Decision in the proceeding was handed down on December 2, 1963 , which was
subsequently affirmed by the Board. See Miller-Charles and Company, 146 NLRB
405. In that case the Board found that beginning on May 31, 1963 , the Company
had engaged in conduct which violated Section 8 ( a) (1) and ( 2) of the Act: (I) by
suggesting and encouraging representation of their employees by a committee of
employees in preference to an outside union and, while a question of representation
was pending , by recognizing and negotiating with the committee and granting con-
cessions to its employees as a result of such negotiations , and (2 ) by the remarks made
by General Manager Stewart on two occasions to groups of employees assembled in
the plant on working time to the effect that if the employees chose an outside union to
represent them such union would make excessive demands which would force the
Company to eliminate overtime and to close the plant within 120 days.
In early June 1963, the contemporaneous with the events described in the earlier
case, the Company promulgated a no-solicitation rule. The rule was posted in
English and Spanish on the bulletin board at the timeclock and in English in the
shipping department .' The rule which has not been revoked since it was promul-
gated reads as follows:
This is to notify all personnel that it is a violation of company rules to engage
in union solicitation on company time and on company property. Violators are
subject to disciplinary action.
Between September 9, 1963, the date of the hearing in the prior unfair labor prac-
tice case, and December 17, 1963, organizational activity on the part of the Union
at the Company's plant was minimal However, on November 23, 1963, Gerardo
Vega and Cristobal Rivera walked out of the plant before commencement of work,
together with three other employees , in protest against a supposed discrimination
against them . The imagined discrimination was that the employees in the automatic
section were being given 1 day's work at overtime rates which was not being given
to Vega, Rivera, and the other employees in the secondary department. There is no
evidence that the walkout was sponsored by, in support of, or had any relation to,
the Union. The Company on November 26, 1963, discharged both Vega and Rivera
for having been responsible for the walkout. Whether Vega's and Rivera's conduct
was a concerted activity subject to the Act's protection need not be decided here
because General Counsel specifically disclaimed reliance thereon as evidence of any
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) or ( 3) in this case . On the other hand, I agree with
Respondents that the walkout was a demonstration of arrogance , hot temper, and
refusal to listen to explanation on the part of both Vega and Rivera. The Company
rehired both Vega and Rivera on December 11, 1963.
On December 17, 1963, Vega on behalf of the Union distributed leaflets in the
plant which discussed the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner in the earlier
case and which invited employees to join the Union and to express their willingness
to do so by telephoning the Union's representative. Respondents sought to prove
that Vega distributed these leaflets to several employees while they were at work.
Vega testified that he distributed leaflets to two employees in the shipping depart-
ment during the 3 o'clock coffee break. This testimony is uncontradicted. Vega
also testified that he distributed leaflets to 10 or 11 employees in the secondary depart-
Vega and Cristobal Rivera, neither of whom impressed me as being reliable witnesses,
testified that they did not know of the existence of the rule prior to December 17, 1963.
On the other hand, General Manager Stewart testified that he caused a notice setting forth
the rule to be prepared and posted in the plant Stewart's testimony was corroborated by
Hernandez, Underwood, Hill, and Rodriguez, each of whom testified that be saw the notice
posted in the plant I find that, as testified by Stewart, the no-solicitation rule «as
posted in the plant in early June 1963
1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment and in the automatic section between 12:30 and 1 p.m., but only to employees
who were then at lunch. Respondents attempted to prove that Vega gave a leaflet
to employee Henry Bostic before noon and gave another leaflet to an employee in the
automatic section who also was at work. I do not credit Bostic's testimony that he
received a leaflet from Vega before noon. Every other witness who testified con-
cerning the distribution of leaflets during the period in question testified that Vega
handed out the leaflets between 12:30 and 1 p.m. Such testimony corroborates Vega's
testimony that he first received the leaflets from a union representative in the Com-
pany's parking lot shortly after 12:30 p.m. Similarly, Respondents have failed to
establish that Vega distributed leaflets to any employees in the automatic section
while they were at work. Vega testified that he gave leaflets to three employees in
the automatic section who at the time had sandwiches in their hands and were read-
ing newspapers ; one was 'called Pancho , the other was called Papa (Mario Beato),
and he was unable to remember the third man's name (testimony of other witnesses
indicate that the third man was Aurelio (Willie) Rodriguez). Rodriguez testified
that while he was eating lunch behind the automatic machines he saw Vega hand
leaflets to Beato and Ira Hill both of whom were then at work operating their ma-
chines. However, Ira Hill testified that Vega did not give him a leaflet. According
to Hill, Vega handed leaflets to Pancho and Rodriguez, who were eating their lunches,
and also to Beato who was operating a machine. Beato was not called upon to
testify. Edward Underwood testified that he was operating a machine in'the auto-
matic section when Vega was distributing the leaflets and, although Vega distributed
leaflets to employees in the section, he did not give a leaflet to any employee who was
working.2 There is considerable conflict as to whether Vega gave a leaflet to Beato
while the latter was at work. Vega testified that he gave a leaflet to Beato who was
then eating lunch Rodriguez and Hill testified that a leaflet was given to Beato
while he was working and Underwood testified to the contrary. Respondents in their
brief do not claim that Vega gave a leaflet to Beato. Upon the foregoing, I find that
Respondents have not proved that Vega on December 17, 1963, handed leaflets to any
employees who were working.
The next day, December 18, the Company discharged Vega for having distributed
union leaflets the preceding day.3
B. Conclusion
Respondents' defense herein is that by discharging Vega for having distributed
union leaflets to other employees while they were at work it was simply enforcing
its valid rule which prohibits employees from engaging in union solicitation in the
plant during their working time. The basic defect in this position is that the activity
complained of, apart from any question of whether it was conducted on-"company
time," did not violate the rule. The rule regulates "union solicitation" and does not
refer to the distribution of literature . In advancing their defense Respondents have
without justification equated the term "distribution" with the term "solicitation."
These terms are not synonymous. As the Board pointed out in Stoddard-Quirk
Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615, 616, 619,
... a real distinction exists in law and in fact between oral solicitation on the
one hand and distribution of literature on the other . . . . It springs from the
fact that solicitation and distribution of literature are different organizational
techniques and their implementation poses different problems both for the
employer and the employees.
2 Underwood also testified that he reported to Shop Foreman Harold Wachs that he
saw Vega distribute the leaflets . This is the only credible evidence in the record as to
how Respondents learned about Vega's activities in regard to the distribution of the
leaflets. Rivera testified that Harold Wachs was operating one of the automatic screw
machines at the time Vega was distributing the leaflets This testimony conflicts with
versions of the event given by other witnesses and I do not credit Rivera in this respect.
3 The Company 's position is that such distribution was a violation of its no-solicitation
rule for which Vega was discharged . Although Edward Stewart , general manager of the
Company, testified that a contributing consideration in the Company 's decision to dis-
charge Vega was his unsatisfactory performance as an employee and the telegram to Vega
notifying him of his discharge referred to the neglect of his work, it is undisputed that
Vega would not have been discharged on December 18, 1963, had he not engaged in the
distribution of union leaflets in the plant the previous day, and I find that the Company's
motivating reason for discharging Vega was the fact that he had made such distribution
MILLER CHARLES AND COMPANY 1585
Because of these differences, in order to arrive at a reasonable accommodation
between the right of self-organization assured to employees under the Act and the
right of an employer to maintain discipline and good order in his plant , the Board
in the Stoddard-Quirk case enunciated different rules regarding permissible employer
restrictions upon employees' right to distribute literature and to engage in union
solicitation. Thus, because solicitation is oral in nature and impinges upon the
employer's interests only to the extent that it occurs on working time, a no-solicitation
rule may validly be applied only to working time; whereas because distribution of
literature carries the potential of littering the employer's premises and raises a hazard
to production, whether it occurs on working time or nonworking time, a no-distribution
rule relating to the plant proper normally may be applied to nonworking time as well
as to working time.
The no-solicitation rule in this case cannot fairly be construed as encompassing a
similar restriction upon the distribution of literature. An employer's reasons for
regulating either solicitation or distribution may not apply to the other activity. An
employer who is legitimately concerned with avoiding unnecessary litter in his plant
may have no concern that union conversations by his employees, even during working
hours, will adversely affect production. Conversely, an employer who fairly seeks
to restrict employees from engaging in union solicitation during working hours may
be unconcerned with the problem of litter in his plant or that the distribution of
literature to employees, even during working hours, would impair production. In this
case the Company not only permitted employees to eat their lunches at their places
of work, but also permitted the employees while at lunch and during coffee breaks
to read newspapers in the work areas of the plant. This indicates that the Company
was not troubled by the possibility that newspapers or other literature in the func-
tional areas of the plant, even while some employees were operating machines, would
create undue litter, constitute a hazard to production or otherwise interfere with opera-
tions. In the circumstances, compatible with the principles discussed above, I find
that the rule upon which the Company relies, which restricts union solicitation, does
not impose any prohibition upon the distribution of union literature.4
The leaflet which Vega distributed on December 17 was not a document which
called for any discussion between Vega and the persons to whom it was handed. It
contained 'a request that the recipients contact the Union and gave the name and
telephone number of the union representative who should be contacted There is no
evidence, nor do Respondents contend, that Vega at the time he passed out the leaflet
spoke with any employee who was working or that while in the plant proper on the
day in question he conversed with any employee about the Union. Therefore, I do
not find that in connection with the distribution of the leaflets Vega also had been
engaged in oral solicitation. Furthermore, Respondents have not established that
Vega distributed leaflets during his working time or to any other employees while
they were at work. Accordingly, I find that Respondents have failed to, prove their
defense that on December 17, 1963, Vega breached the Company's no-solicitation
rule.5
The discharge of Vega on December 18, 1963, for having distributed union litera-
ture within the Company's plant,_,which is an organizational activity protected by
Section 7 of the Act, constituted a discrimination tending to discourage membership
in the Union, and also interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a
close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that Respondents cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Cf. Wallow Maintenance Corp., 143 NLRB 64, enfd. 332 F. 2d 367 (C.A. 2).
6 Ripley Manufacturing Company, 144 NLRB 1132 ( discharge of Willie Maye Alford).
760-577-65-vol . 148-101
1586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that Respondents unlawfully discharged Gerardo Vega on Decem-
ber 18, 1963, I shall recommend that Respondents offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him , by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
from the aforesaid date of discharge to the date of Respondents' offer of reinstate-
ment less his net earnings during such period. The backpay provided herein shall be
computed on the basis of calendar quarters, in accordance with the method pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. Interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum shall be added to such net backpay and shall be computed in the manner
set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Gerardo
Vega, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondents have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in
the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that Respond-
ents, Harold Miller, Herbert Charles and Milton Charles, Co-Partners, d/b/a Miller
Charles and Company, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of their employees in Local 463, Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, by discharging any individual, or in any other manner discrimi-
nating against any individual in regard to his hire, his tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of his employment.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing their
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities 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 deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Gerardo Vega immediate and full reinstatement to his former or to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of this decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board and its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant to a determina-
tion of the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at their place of business in Mineola, New York, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 2, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized !representative
of the Company, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
0In the event that this Recommended Order Is 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 is 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 Deci-
sion and Order."
EARL FISHER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1587
them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date of the
receipt of this Decision what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.?
Y In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondents have 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 National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity on behalf of Local 463,
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization , by discharging any of our employees , or in any
other manner discriminating against any of our employees in regard to hire,
tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form, join,
or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
WE WILL offer Gerardo Vega immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him.
HAROLD MILLER, HERBERT CHARLES AND MILTON CHARLES,
Co-Partners, d/b/a MILLER CHARLES AND COMPANY,
Employer.
------Dated------------------- By---------------------------------Title )(Representative
NOTE.-We will notify Gerardo Vega if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fifth
Floor, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Earl Fisher Manufacturing Company and United Rubber , Cork,.
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No.
9-CA-3076. October 9, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 22, 1964, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his,
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
148 NLRB No. 160.