Modern Settings, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1584 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX-Continued
Employee Year and Bonus Wages Total Interim Net
quarter (gross ) (gross ) gross earnings backpay
202 Williams , Alice------------------- 1955-2 ---------- $35.17 $35.17 $24 84 $10 33
203. Williams , Helen------------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- None
204. Williams , Marion----------------- 1955-2 $23.61 327 63 351 24 95 00 256 24
1955-3 ---------- 370 24 370 24 350. 00 20 24
1955-4 ---------- 403 29 403 29 325 00 78.29
1956-1 15 65 90 12 105 77 80.00 25 77
Total--------------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- 380.54
205 Woodfork , Yvonne-------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- None
206 Woodridge , Estella-- ------------- 1955-3 ---------- 11.77 11.77 ---------- 11.77
1955-4 ---------- 403 29 403. 29 8.00 395 29
1956-1 15 65 406 27 421 . 92 ---------- 421.92
1956-2 ---------- 436 14 436. 14 ---------- 436.14
1956-3 27. 18 383 65 410 83 ---------- 410.83
1956-4 9 74 356 50 366 24 ---------- 366 24
1957-1 ---------- 438 26 438 26 ---------- 438 26
1957-2 26.69 429 96 456 65 ---------- 456 65
1957-3 ---------- 406 50 406 50 ---------- 406.50
1957-4 ---------- 381.47 381 47 ---------- 381.47
1958-1 10 38 34.50 44.88 ---------- 44.88
Total--------------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- 3,769 95
207. Zeno , Audrey-------------------- 1955-2 ---------- 69 237 69 17 . 30 220.39
Cumulative Total (as of June
30, 1961----------------------- ------------ I ---------- ------- -- -------- ---------- $160,894.69
Modern Settings, Inc. and Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond &
Watchcase Workers Union , Local 1, International Jewelry
Workers Union , AFL-CIO
Modern Settings , Inc. and Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond &
Watchcase Workers Union , Local 1 , International Jewelry
Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 2-CA-10610
and 2-RC-13933. June 6, 1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
On March 8, 1966, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman 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 land take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. In addition, the Trial Examiner made additional
158 NLRB No. 147.
MODERN SETTINGS, INC. 1585
findings and recommendations with respect to challenges and objec-
tions filed in Case No. 2-RC-13933, also as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions to the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as ,amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers" in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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, the exceptions, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner and makes the following addi-
tional findings : (1) The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer. (2) A question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. (3) The following employees, as stipulated by the parties,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and
maintenance employees, excluding all professional employees, office
clerical employees, salesmen , watchmen, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (1) in the respects found and reported by the Trial
Examiner in his Decision.
In considering the challenges to three ballots, the Trial Examiner
sustained the challenges to the ballots of Castellanos and Noy and
overruled the challenge to the ballot of Dillon. He thereupon rec-
ommended that Dillon's ballot be opened and counted. We note,
however, that in recommending that the challenges to the ballots of
Castellanos and Noy be sustained, a recommendation which we
adopt, since it is completely supported by the record, it is apparent
that the Union's majority can no longer be affected by Dillon's bal-
lot. Thus, the Trial Examiner's recommendation that Dillon's bal-
lot be opened and counted was an apparent oversight. In these
circumstances, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the challenge to
Dillon's ballot, and shall disregard the Trial Examiner' s recom-
mendation with respect thereto. Accordingly, in view of the fact
that the Union received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall
certify the said labor organization as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit set out above.
221-731-67-vol. 158-101
1 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order ]
[The Board certified Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watch-
case Woikeis Union, Local 1, International Jewelry Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, as the design lted collective-bargaining representative of
the employees at the New York, New York, plant of Modern Set-
tings, Inc ]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
The complaint in Case No 2-CA-10610 was issued on August 26, 1965,' and
an order consolidating that case with Case No 2-RC-13933 issued on October 22
A consolidated hearing was held before Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman on Novem-
ber 22 and 23, and on February 17 1966 The issues litigated related to alleged
threats of reprisal, promises of benefit, interrogation, interference with a Board
election, and the challenges to thiee ballots cast in that election 2 A brief was
filed by Respondent
Upon the entire record,3 including my observation of the witnesses I adopt the
following findings and conclusions
I RESPONDENT S BUSINESS
Modern Settings, Inc, herein called Respondent, is a New York corporation and
is engaged at its plant in New York City in the manufacture and sale of jewelry
and related products It annually ships to out of State points products valued in
excess of $50,000 Respondent is engaged in commerce under the Act
II THE UNION
Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond and Watchcase Workers Union, Local No 1,
International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein callc,d the Union, is a
labor organization under the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint in Case No 2-CA-10610 alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act by interrogation, threats of reprisal, promises of benefit, and
by promulgating and maintaining in effect restrictive plant rules The answer denies
the foregoing allegations
The Board's Order in Case No 2-RC-13933 directs that a hearing be held to
resolve the issues raised by the challenges to certain ballots cast in an election
held on June 4, and by one of the objections to the election
A Sequence of events
Late in March the Union began to organize Respondents production and main-
tenance employees, about 12 in number, and on March 29, the Union filed a
petition for an election in Case No 2-RC-13933 On April 23, at a conference
with a Board agent, the parties entered into a stipulation for certification upon
consent election In the election held on June 4, five votes were cast for, and
three against, the Union and three votes were challenged The Union filed timely
'All events hereinafter related occurred in 1965 unless otherwise specified
2 There were also litigated certain allegations in the complaint of discrimination against
Castellanov However at the reopened hearing on February 17 1966, Castellanos who
had testified earlier, failed to appear to submit to further cross examination Respondent
then moved to strike his entire testimony which motion was granted The General Counsel
at the same time moved to withdraw the allegations of the complaint pertaining to Castel
lanos That motion was also granted Accordingly no further consideration will be given
herein to such testimony or to such allegations
I In addition to other corrections of the transcript ordered at the hearing ( pages 895-397
of transcript) the transcript is hereby further corrected change (1) 'Simmons to
' Dillon' on page 274, line 12, and page 275 lines 4 10 and 13 ( 2) "GC-7 ' to "GC-5 on
page 397 line 11 and ( 3) "regressing" to "reversing' on page 399 line 7
MODERN SETTINGS, INC. 1587
objections to the election, and the Acting Regional Director, in his report on objec-
tions and challenged ballots recommended that a hearing be held to resolve the
issues raised by the challenges and by one of the objections to the election. No
exceptions to the report were filed, and the foregoing recommendations were
adopted by the Board on October 15. On October 22, the Regional Director issued
an order consolidating the representation case with the unfair labor practice case.
B. Discussion
1. The 8 (a)(1) issues
Threats and Promises
As already noted, the Union's election petition was filed on March 29, and on
April 23, a conference with regard thereto was held in the Board's Regional Office.
Employee Simmons testified that a few weeks before this conference, Kaye,
Respondent's president, asked him how he felt about the Union; that the witness
replied that he felt as the others did; and that Kaye remarked that "it was a small
shop and they can't • afford a union," and that if the Union organized the plant
Respondent would have to close down. According to Kaye, the only time he
discussed the Union with Simmons was the day after the foregoing conference
regarding the Union's petition, and Simmons initiated the discussion by volunteer-
ing that he had been absent from work the day before because all the employees
had been subpenaed to appear before the Board. Kay insisted that the conversa-
tion was limited to "generalities applying to nothing, nothing in particular," and
he denied that he at any time asked Simmons how he felt about the Union, or
threatened to close the plant because of the Union.
, Respondent sought to impeach Simmons' credibility by eliciting from him an
admission that about a week before the instant hearing he signed a statement, at
the request of Respondent's counsel, in which, while confirming the foregoing
interrogation by Kaye, he denied that Kaye made any "threat to me at that time
or at any other time concerning my mteiest in the union." When asked to recon-
cile the apparent conflict between the foregoing statement and his testimony about
Kaye's threat to close the plant,,the -witness insisted that there was in fact such
a threat, but-that he did.not regard it as addressed specifically to him, and that
this was the reason for his denial in the statement of any "threat to me."
I was favorably impressed by Simmons' testimony, not only because of his
demeanor, but also because his testimony as a whole was notably nonpartisan. He
was subpenaed by the General Counsel and, while, as noted above, he testified to
the interrogation and threat by Kaye,, he also -gave testimony that was adverse to
the General Counsel's position in other areas. Moreover, the force of Kaye's
contradiction of Simmons' testimony was considerably weakened by Kaye's vague-
ness as to the content of his discussion of the Union with Simmons 4 Under all
the circumstances, I, am inclined to accept Simmons' not implausible explanation
of the apparent inconsistency between his testimony and his pretrial statement, and
to credit his version of the foregoing incident. Accordingly, I find that Kaye late
in Aprils interrogated Simmons about his union sentiments and threatened to
close the plant if the Union succeeded in organizing it, and that by such interroga-
tion and threat Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Employee Powell testified that a few days before the June 4 election Kaye told
the witness that he wanted him to vote against the Union, and later summoned
the witness to his office, and, after explaining that he could not give him a raise'
because it would be considered a bribe, declared that "after this is settled, I can
promise you something"6
Kaye's version was that about the time of the election Powell asked for a raise
and that Kaye answered, in effect, that he was barred from granting any raises
4 Such vagueness was in marked contiast to the vividness of Kaye's recollection of other
aspects of this incident.
In view of Simmons' uncertainty as to the exact date of the incident, and as Kaye
admitted discussing the Union with Simmons the day after the April 23 Board conference,
I deem it more likely that the incident occurred on April 24 , rather than , as Simmons
thought, a few weeks earlier.
8 According to Powell, he rejoined that. since he did not bargain with his employer
there was no need for any deaf regarding any future raise, but he assured Kaye, albeit
insincerely , that he would vote against the Union anyhow.
T588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the pendency of the election. However, when asked whether he had promised
Powell any consideration when the election campaign was over, he answered, "I
said that he was a good employee, which I guess would imply that I would take
care of him in such a manner." Thus, Kaye, in effect, admitted that-he-countered
Powell's request for a raise with a remark which, as he was aware, was calculated
to convey to. Powell the.message that his request would be granted after the elec-
tion. Accordingly, even if one credits Kaye's version that he gave Powell only a
covert promise of a raise, it would be necessary to find that, by making such a
promise on the eve of the election, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of 'the
Act. Moreover, on the basis of demeanor, as well as the circumstantiality of his
testimony, I credit fully Powell's version of the incident and find that there was not
merely, as Kaye admitted, an implied promise of a postelection raise to Powell but
an explicit promise to that effect, and, I find, contrary to Kaye's testimony, that
such promise was not solicited by Powell but was volunteered by Kaye in conjunc-
tion with his admonition to Powell to vote against the Union.
Employee Rivera testified that the day before the election Kaye told him that,
if he voted against the Union, Kaye would "take care" of him; that the witness
asked for time to consider the matter; that about 5 minutes later Kaye pressed the
witness for an ,answer ; that the witness put Kaye off again ; and that the next morn-
ing Kaye again pressed him for an answer, but the witness again put him off.
Kaye denied that he talked about the Union with Rivera, and, while admitting
that about the time of the election he had discussed a raise with Rivera, Kaye's
version was that this discussion was initiated by Rivera's request for a raise, which
request Kaye rejected on the ground that he was barred from granting any raises
during the preelection period. However, here, as elsewhere, Kaye's denial of
having made the remarks attributed to him was marred by a tendency to avoid a
direct denial until pressed to do so by counsel.?
In an effort to impeach Rivera's testimony, Respondent elicited from him an
admission that about a week before the instant hearing he had given Respondent's
counsel an affidavit to the effect that Kaye had never mentioned the Union to the
witness nor offered him any inducement to repudiate the Union. When asked to
explain the circumstances under which this affidavit was obtained, the witness testi-
fied, that he was summoned to Kaye's office, where he was interviewed by one of
Respondent 's trial counsels, in the presence of another individual , who was intro-
duced to the witness as an attorney. While conceding that Respondent's counsel
assured him that there would be no reprisals against him if he did not sign any
affidavit, and that his union sentiments were of no concern to counsel, Rivera
insisted that he told Respondent's counsel about Kaye's above-described promise to
take care of him, but was, in effect, assured that such a promise was of no conse-
quence because of its vagueness. Neither the counsel in question nor the other
attorney who was present at the interview challenged Rivera's account of the inter-
view, and I credit it. In view of this, I can give no effect to the affidavit as impeach-
ing Rivera 's testimony ,8 and, since , unlike Kaye , Rivera impressed me as a sincere
and forthright witness, and his testimony was further authenticated by its circum-
stantiality, I credit him, and find that on June 3 and 4, Kaye, in effect, offered him
a raise, if he would promise to vote against the Union, and by such promise and the
related interrogation of Rivera, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Plant Rules
The complaint alleged that on or about June 7, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating and maintaining in effect certain restrictive
rules 9 not previously promulgated or enforced , in reprisal for the employees'
adherence to the Union.
Typical of this was the following exchange between Kaye and Respondent 's counsel:
Q. And did you make any promise to him (Rivera ] of a future pay increase?
A. I had no right to do anything like that.
Q. I mean, but did you make any promise?
A. No, no.
8 Like most of the other employee witnesses herein, Rivera was foreign-born. and had a
limited knowledge df, English'. It was therefore all the more likely that he would accept
the foregoing explanation by Respondent's counsel of the import of his affidavit.
8 The complaint lists specifically only three items covered by the alleged rules. Other
items were specified at the hearing Some of them were struck by me, and only the remain-
ing items are here considered . Any findings as to the stricken items would be cumulative,
in any event.
MODERN SETTINGS, INC 1589
Simmons and Hernandez testified that the day after the election Respondent
posted a notice in the plant which, inter alia , forbade smoking and cooking of food
in the plant and required employees to change into their work clothes before
punching in Hernandez, who was hired in October 1964, was positive that he had
not seen such a notice before, and Simmons, who had been with Respondent since
1959, affirmed that he had not previously seen such a notice it Respondent's
present location 10 While admitting that there had always been posted a separate
notice forbidding smoking,il Simmons insisted that the employees did not observe
this prohibition until after the foregoing more comprehensive notice was posted,
when they stopped smoking because they feared that Respondent now meant to
enforce the no-smoking rule in reprisal for the showing made by the Union in the
election 12
Binder and Kaye, on the other hand, denied that the notice in question was first
posted after the election, insisting that it had been posted at Respondent's present
location at least since December 1964,13 and that since the election there had been
no change in the extent to which the rules thus promulgated had been enforced
As to the rule about changing into work clothes before punching in, it appears from
Kaye's testimony that there had been occasions prior to the posting of the notice
when employees changed their clothes after punching in It also appears from
Binder's testimony, as corroborated by Kaye, that it had been the practice of some
of the employees to prepare their lunch on the premises, in advance of the lunch
hour, and that the foregoing notice was designed to, and did, put a stop to that
practice It is thus clear that both the foregoing rules purported to terminate
existing employee privileges
Since, for reasons already related, I regard Simmons as a more credible witness
than Kaye or Binder, and, as his testimony was corroborated by Hernandez, I
find that the foregoing notice was in fact posted for the first time it Respondent's
present location on the day after the election, and that, with regard at least to
the cooking of food on the premises and the changing of clothes after punching
in, this was the first time that a rule forbidding such practices had been there
posted In view of the timing thereof in relation to the date of the election, and
in the absence of any explanation by Respondent for such timing, it is found that
such action was in reprisal for the employees' support of the Union in the election,
and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act
2 The issues in the representation case
At the election, the ballots of Noy (since deceased), Dillon, and Castellanos
were challenged
Castellanos' ballot was challenged by Respondent on the ground that he was no
longer an employee It is undisputed that he was discharged on April 30, and,
although the complaint alleged such discharge to be discriminatory, such allegation
was withdrawn during the hearing under circumstances already described 14 Accord-
ingly, it will be recommended that the challenge to this ballot be sustained
Noy was challenged by the Union on the ground that he was a supervisor
Powell testified that, after he was interviewed for employment by Noy, the latter,
without consulting anyone else, promptly notified the witness to report for work
Hernandez' testimony was to like effect, and Rivera also testified that he was
hired by Noy
Binder, on the other hand, insisted that Noy was merely a setup man , and that
Kaye did all the hiring, but he admitted that Noy interviewed those Spanish-
speaking applicants who had a limited knowledge of English, and that, on the basis
of such interviews, Noy would make recommendations concerning hiring which
were sometimes adopted Binder, as well as Kaye, also admitted that Noy notified
employees of overtime assignments , but they insisted that he was thereby merely
communicating a decision actually made by Kaye Binder acknowledged further,
10 Respondent had moved to its present location in 1962
11 Such a notice was apparently required by local fire regulations
' As already related , the Union obtained a majority of the votes cast, exclusive of the
challenged ballots
1a They also testified that the same notice had been posted in premises occupied by Re-
spondent before 1962 when the move was made to the present location As Simmons was
unable to recall whether or not this was so I credit their testimony to that effect
14 See footnote 2, above
1590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Noy's salary was considerably higher than that of those employees who worked
directly with him 15
Kaye attributed to Noy an even more limited role in hiring than did Binder,
insisting that Noy acted primarily merely as an interpreter for Spanish-speaking
applicants, when they were interviewed by Kaye, and that, while on rare occasions
Noy might interview an applicant, himself, and report the result to Kaye, he never
gave any weight to any recommendations by Noy. While Kaye conceded that
Noy directed other employees in their work and notified them of changes in their
job assignments, he maintained that such direction was limited to telling the
operator of a machine how to work with a tool setup in the machine by Noy, and
that any changes in assignments effected by Noy were dictated by Kaye.
However, in view of Binder's admission, albeit qualified, as to the effectiveness
of Noy's recommendations concerning hiring, and the testimony of Powell, Rivera,
and Hernandez, whom I credit on the basis of demeanor, I find that Noy did have
sufficient authority, at least with regard to hiring, to constitute him a supervisor
under the Act. I will therefore recommend that the challenge to Noy's ballot be
sustained.
Dillon was challenged by the Union on the ground that he was an office em-
ployee. The appropriate unit was defined as including all Respondent's produc-
tion and maintenance employees, and as excluding, inter alia, office clerical
employees. There was sharply conflicting testimony concerning the proportion of
time spent by Dillon in the office and in the shop during the eligibility period.16
However, even if one credits fully the employee testimony that, until a few weeks
before the election (on June 4) he spent all of his time in the office, there is
insufficient basis in the record for finding that his work in the office was primarily
that of an office clerk rather than a plant clerk.17
According to Respondent's witnesses, particularly Binder, Dillon 's duties in the
office consisted merely of weighing the gold in shipments to and from Respondent's
plant, and preparing receipts to be signed by messengers, for merchandise entrusted
to them by Respondent for delivery to customers. These are duties normally asso-
ciated with a shipping or receiving clerk, both of whom are subsumed under the
general category of plant clerk rather than office clerk. -
The Union's witnesses did not dispute the foregoing testimony as to the nature
of Dillon's work in the office,19. asserting only that, in addition, he answered the
telephone and appeared to be writing down orders from customers. Even if this
be deemed to establish that he was thereby performing the duties of an office clerk,
there was no evidence as to what proportion of his time was spent in such order-
taking work.
Accordingly, even if it be assumed that Dillon spent all his time in the office,
it is necessary to find upon the present record that by virtue of the nature of his
work in the office, as described by Respondent, he had sufficient community of
interest with the other employees to warrant his inclusion in the unit.19 I will
therefore recommend that the challenge to his ballot be rejected.
The Union's objection to the election which was referred to me for hearing
alleged that Respondent had promised employees wage increases and other rewards
if they voted against the Union in the election. It has been found above that such
promises were made to Powell and Rivera shortly before the election. As Respond-
ent thereby interfered with freedom of choice in the election it will be recommended
that, if, after final resolution of the challenges to the ballots of Castellanos, Dillon,
and Noy, it is determined that a majority of the votes have not been cast for the
16IIis salary was $105 a week, as compared to a maximum of about $75 per week for
the production employees generally.
16 The week ending April 21.
17 While the unit description expressly excludes "office clerical employees," It makes no
reference to plant clerks, who are customarily included by the Board in units of production
and maintenance employees.
18 In fact, one of these witnesses, Simmons, agreed with Respondent's witnesses on this
point.
19 The fact that Dillon was a brother-in-law of Binder does not require his exclusion from
the unit, absent any persuasive evidence that he enjoyed any special privileges or status
by reason of that fact. Adam D. Goettl d/b/a International Metal Products Company, 107
NLRB 65; Peter Hosta, Jr., d/b/a Buffalo Tool & Dye Mfg. Co, 109 NLRB 1343, 1345.
While it was admitted that he received a higher rate of pay than other production work-
ers, Binder plausibly attributed this to the fact that Dillon was charged with respon-
sibility for maintaining an accurate record of the amount of gold received and shipped.
MODERN SETTINGS, INC. 1591
Union, the election be set aside and a new election directed at such time as the
Regional Director may deem appropriate.
M. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent 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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow thereof.
IV., THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged, in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it be required to' cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designedto effectuate the policies of. the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening reprisals for union activities,, by offering inducements to re-
pudiate the Union, by coercively interrogating employees about their union senti-
ments, and by promulgating restrictive plant rules because of employee union activ-
ities, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of ,the Act, and has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. By offering employees inducements to repudiate the Union, Respondent inter-
fered with freedom of choice in the election held on June 4.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, Modern Settings, Inc., New
York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to close its plant because of employee union activities, coer-
cively interrogating employees about their union sentiments, offering them induce-
ments to refrain from union activities, and revoking employee privileges because of
union activities.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
permitted by the provisos to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a). Post at its plant in New York, New York, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 2, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by' any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
Herewith 21
214n 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 Decision and Order."
a+ If 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith ." ' "
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: (1) the ballot of Henry Dillon cast in the
election of June 4, be opened and counted, and that, if it is thereby determined
that the Union has obtained a majority of the votes, the Union be certified as the
representative of Respondent's employees in the unit heretofore found to be
appropriate; (2) the challenges to the ballots of John Castellanos and Roy Noy
be sustained; and (3) if, after counting the ballots of all eligible voters in said
election, it is determined that there is no majority for the Union, the election be
set aside and the representation case be remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 2 to conduct a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit a free choice of a bargaining representative.
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant because of employee union activities
or coercively interrogate our employees about their union sentiments, or offer
them inducements to refrain from union activities, or withdraw privileges from
our employees because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join or
assist Amalgamated Jewelry, Diamond & Watchcase Workers Union, Local 1,
International Jewelry Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except as permitted by the provisos in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
MODERN SETTINGS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fifth
Floor, Squibb Building 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No.
751-5500.
Ambassador Steel Co., Inc. and International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-7063.
June 6, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING HEARING
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
approved November 3, 1965, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on November 15, 1965, under the direction and supervision
of the Acting Regional Director for Region 7, among the employees
in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that there were
approximately 47 eligible voters, and that 48 ballots were cast, of
which 20 were for, and 19 were against, the Petitioner, with 9 chal-
158 NLRB No. 135.