Monahon Ford Corp. of Flushing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1969

173 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing and Local
868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca. Cases 29-CA-1054, 29-CA-1115
October 18, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On July 10, 1968, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's 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.
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 recommendations of the Trial Exam-
mer, with the following additions.
The Trial Examiner found that the allegations of
the complaint charging harassment and deprivation of
the five discriminatees were substantiated by the
evidence, and that these actions forced the five card
signers (Indich, McCarthy, Karsh, Walker, and Gia-
copelli) to leave Respondent's employ on various
dates near the end Of June. In so finding, he relied on
all of the evidence of harassment tactics as outlined in
the testimony of the discriminatees, and in the
remarks made to employees during the course of their
employment and at the time of their terminations.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the record as
a whole shows a pattern of behavior on the part of
Respondent which led to the constructive discharges
of the five employees. However, we find that the
record reveals further evidence substantiating the
circumstances upon which he relied.
With regard to McCarthy, the Trial Examiner found
that he was threatened on June 19 that he would
never sell another car at Monahan Ford, and that he
"would never work at another Ford dealer in the
country" for failure to submit a letter of resignation
when requested to do so. The uncontradicted testi-
mony of McCarthy further shows that, because the
173 NLRB No. 37
situation at Monhahan Ford became increasingly
worse, he accepted a job offer from a Ford dealer in
Chicago and left the employ of Respondent. Two
days later, Respondent's used car manager Console
called McCarthy and asked if' he was giving up.
McCarthy replied that he was quitting and would not
be back.
Karsh testified that near the end of June it became
so hard to work at Monahan Ford that he quit. When
he told Pederson, Respondent's general manager, that
he was quitting, Pederson asked if he would stay and
said, "Now that I have the union beat, you are
welcome to stay." Pederson also told him to keep the
keys to the demonstrator for a few days and think it
over. Karsh refused this offer. Monahan called him a
few days later and asked Karsh to come back because
everyone had left and he needed a good salesman.
Karsh testified that he did not go back because "after
the way I was treated, I didn't think I could work for
him anymore."
Walker also left the employ of Respondent around
June 23 due to the treatment given him by Re-
spondent's supervisor Pederson. The testimony of
Karsh, Monahan, and Walker point out the fact that
Monahan had made it clear that he wanted Walker to
stay, regardless of the outcome of the union cam-
paign. However, the actions taken by Respondent's
supervisors to harass the salesmen and discourage
unionization did force Walker to find other employ-
ment; and, when he did quit, Console did remark
about how the employees had been warned that they
would be beaten (as shown in the Trial Examiner's
Decision).
Indich testified that he left the employ of Monahan
Ford around June 22 or 23 because of "the constant
badgering and being insulted and called names" by
Respondent's supervisors.
Another of the five salesmen who had joined the
union, Giacopelli, stated that he knew that a couple
of the fellows had left Respondent's employ, and
Console told him, "It looks like you lost the battle."
(as detailed in the Trial Examiner's Decision). Console
then asked if he was going to quit also, to which
Giacopelli replied, "Yes, I won't work here anymore
under these conditions."
We find that the foregoing evidence concerning the
incidents of the terminations, coupled with the
evidence of harassment relied on by the Trial Exam-
iner, can lead only to the conclusion that the five
discriminatees were constructively discharged in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby -
MONAHAN FORD CORP.
orders that Respondent, Monahan Ford Corporation
of Flushing, Flushing, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
205
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called
the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT COHN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, under
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein the Act), was held on April 22 and 23, 1968,
in Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to due notice The issues
litigated were whether Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing
(herein the Respondent or Company) violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act by engaging in various acts and conduct
more fully detailed herein.'
Upon the entire record in the case, including my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon careful
consideration of the arguments made and the briefs submitted
by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the
Respondent, I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent is a New York corporation maintaining its
principal office and place of business in the Borough of
Queens, city and State of New York, where it is engaged in the
selling and distribution, at retail, of new and used automobiles,
and in performing related services During the past year, which
period is representative of its annual operations generally,
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operations,
derived gross revenues therefrom in excess of $500,000.
During the same period, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, caused to be delivered and
transported to its place of business, automobiles and other
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were
transported and delivered to its place of business in interstate
commerce directly from States of the United States other than
the State of New York.
Based upon the foregoing facts, which are undenied by the
Respondent, I find that Respondent is and has been at all
times material an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
A. Statement of the Issues
1. Whether, on June 1, 1967,2 when the Union made its
demand upon the Respondent for recognition and bargaining,
it represented a majority of the Respondent's employees in an
appropriate unit,
2. Whether the Respondent's refusal, on and after June 1,
to accord recognition to the Union was prompted by a
good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status,
3 Whether, on and after June 1, Respondent's agents and
supervisors engaged in conduct which interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act, and
4. Whether the quitting of five of Respondent's employees
near the end of June constituted constructive discharges of
such employees.
B. The Union's Organizational Campaign
and Request for Recognition
During the evening of May 31, at a tavern in Flushing, New
York, there was a meeting of five of the Respondent's
salesmen with Union Representative Leonard Shifnn. At that
time, the latter collected signed authorization cards from each
of the five indicating their desire to have the Union represent
them for purposes of collective bargaining.3
The following day, June 1, at approximately 8.45 a in.,
Union Representative Shifrin arrived at the premises of the
Respondent and engaged in a conversation with John Pedersen,
Respondent's general manager. Shifrln asked the latter if he
remembered him, to which Pedersen replied, "Unfortunately, I
do."4 Shifrin then advised that he had signed up a majority of
his (Pedersen's) people, and desired recognition and bargaining.
In rather unkind language, Pedersen invited Shifnn out of his
office and a heated exchange followed. Shtfrin advised that the
Union intended to file a petition for an election with the
Labor Board and threatened a picket line if he "heard that he
[Pedersen] was harassing the people." After Pedersen again
ordered Shifnn out of the showroom, the latter left.5
Shifrin returned to his office, and at 11 45 a.m. that day,
dispatched a telegram to the Respondent over the signature of
John T. Burke, president of the Union, which stated as
follows:
This is to advise you that we represent the majority of
your automobile salesmen employees and request an
I The charge in Case 29-CA-1054 was filed July 18, 1967, the
complaint in that case issued September 29, 1967. The charge in Case
29-CA-1115 was filed September 29, 1967, and was amended on
October 6, 1967. On October 30, 1967, the General Counsel, by the
Regional Director for Region 29, ordered the cases consolidated and
issued a consolidated amended complaint and notice of hearing The
Respondent filed answers to the complaints on or about October It,
1967 , and November 8, 1967.
2 All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1967 unless
otherwise indicated.
3The five employees involved were Karsh, Indich, Walker, McCarthy,
and Giacopelh.
4 This was an apparent reference to an organizational campaign
carried on by the Union at Respondent 's business several years
previously , of which more anon.
5 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of
Shifrin which is, in essence , not denied by Pedersen . The latter testified
that Shifnn appeared in the showroom needing a shave, and that he
invited him to leave noting that he looked "like a bum or he is a bum."
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
early appointment for the purpose of negotiating a
collective bargaining agreement.
There is no evidence that the Company responded to the
telegram or otherwise communicated with the Union re-
specting the request for recognition and bargaining.6
C Alleged Interference, Restraint,
and Coercion
1. Statements of company supervisors
During the afternoon of Thursday, June 1, John Monahan,
president of the Company , called a meeting of salesmen, of
which there were eight' Also present were General Manager
Pedersen and Used Car Manager Console , admitted supervisors
of the Company . At the meeting , which was held in Pedersen's
office, Monahan inquired as to who had signed cards with the
Union, and the five signers raised their hands Monahan advised
that the employees had their rights to join or not join the
Union, but that he had been through an organizational
campaign 3 years before , and pointed out that the employees
who were working for the Company at that time were no
longer working . He offered to give the names and addresses of
these former employees and suggested that the present
employees "check with these guys and find out what happened
to them."8 Monahan related that there were ways that the
resolution of the union question could be delayed for a
considerable amount of time and that nothing would be
accomplished by the employees turning to the Union. He
pointed out that on the previous occasion -on the day of the
vote-Shifrin had walked out and left the men before the
count, and that even if through some manner the Union was
able to get in, he had no intention of signing a contract with
the Union , indeed, he stated that he would rather close his
doors before he would sign such a contract.9
Following Monahan's statements , Pedersen addressed the
group to the effect generally that if any damage resulted to the
Company's property or theft thereof in connection with the
union campaign , he would have no hesitancy in having the
employees arrested-pointing out that he had friends on the
police force . He closed his remarks by stating that if there was
anyone who had signed a card and now felt differently about
it, he could come forward and that there would be no "hard
feelings" about it.' °
Although Monahan testified that his admitted reference to
the previous union campaign in his speech to the employees on
June 1 was "not said in the manner of a threat," an objective
analysis of the statements can lead only to that conclusion.
Thus , we have the president of the corporation, after inter-
rogating employees concerning their union activities , relating
the story of how the Union was defeated in a previous
instance, and how the same tactics could be applied on this
occasion, thereby pointing out in stark relief the futility of the
employees' exercising their Section 7 rights. Such statements
emanating from the Respondent's top officer in the sanctum
of the general manager's office, at a meeting called for the
specific purpose of discussing unionization of the employees,
could reasonably have only the effect of discouraging and
intimidating them from continuing to exercise such rights,
thereby constituting interference, restraint, and coercion with-
in the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) based upon Monahan's
admitted testimony.' 1
Other aspects of the meeting, based upon credited testi-
mony of the employees, constitute additional violations of
that section. Thus, the interrogation by Monahan as to who
signed cards, without any assurances against retaliation, in the
context of a threat never to sign a contract with a union or to
close the doors before he would sign such a contract,
constitutes additional restraint and coercion within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1).i 2 I so find.
In addition to the general sales meeting , Monahan and
Pedersen spoke individually with some of the employees
concerning union representation during this period, i e , the
several days immediately following the Union's request for
recognition. Thus, Walker testified that on the day following
the "steak and beans dinner" (hereinafter more fully discussed,
which occurred on Friday evening, June 2), Monahan called
him into his office and stated that he understood Walker had
signed a union card and felt very strongly about the Union.
Upon Walker's answering in the affirmative, Monahan stated
that he would not try to talk Walker out of it, but that he
wanted Walker to know that regardless of how the matter
turned out he wanted Walker to continue working with the
Company. Continuing, Monahan stated, "I cannot promise you
anything, as you know, . . it is against the law.... But if this
thing is straightened out, one way or another, I might have
been a little too stingy with my money, you can come talk to
me, maybe we can work out a salary, vacation."
Clearly this thinly veiled promise constitutes interference
and restraint within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
I so find.13
McCarthy testified that the following Monday (June 5), he
was called into Pedersen's office, with Monahan present. He
was interrogated by them as to whether he had signed a union
card. When he answered in the affirmative, they expressed
disbelief, indicating that they thought he was a good enough
salesman to become management material , and need not be
dependent upon the Union to make a living. This interroga-
tion, in the sanctum of the general manager's office, in the
context of the prior threats, and without any assurance against
6 The Union subsequently filed a petition for an election, which
resulted in a decision and direction of election by the Regional Director
dated July 13, 1967. However the election was never held, being
presumably blocked by the charges filed herein. The petition was
eventually withdrawn on January 24. 1968 (see Case 29 -RC-762).
7 In addition to the five salesmen who signed cards, named
hereinabove , there were Kenndy, Sinisgelli , and Copperman.
8 The foregoing findings are based upon Monahan's testimony as
corroborated in essential respects by some of the employees including
McCarthy , Karsh , and Walker.
9 The foregoing findings are based upon the mutually corroborative
testimony of McCarthy, Karsh, and Walker, which is credited . In fact,
Monahan did not specifically deny the matter attributed to him except
that , pursuant to a leading question, he denied threatening the
employees with a loss of jobs or a loss of sales should they join the
Union.
10 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of
Karsh and Walker, Pedersen was not interrogated concerning this
particular meeting.
11 Cf Boume v. N.L.R.B, 332 F 2d 47 (C.A. 2).
12 Ibid.
13 The foregoing finding is based upon the credited testimony of
Walker, Monahan was not interrogated concerning this conversation.
MONAHAN FORD CORP. 207
recrimination, constitutes an additional violation of Section
8(a)(1) '
Karsh testified that, during the evening of the day of the
general sales meeting, he was called into Monahan's office
where both Monahan and Pedersen were present They asked
him why he joined the Union since it would get him in a lot of
trouble. They told him that the Union was a "bunch of
parasites" who wanted his money and asked him if he had paid
his $25 initiation fee. When he answered that he had, Monahan
said that it is usually waived. Monahan also advised that Karsh
would never sell another car as long as he worked there and
that he would never make more than $50 a week. At the end
of the conversation, however, Monahan apparently mellowed
somewhat and told Karsh that although he (Monahan) could
not promise anything "because it is against the law, .. if and
when this thing gets settled, [Karsh could] get a salary and
paid vacation and pay for our hospitalization."' 5 The contents
of this Interview clearly constitute coercive interrogation,
threats, and promises violative of Section 8(a)(1) I so find.' 6
2 The part-time employees
The complaint alleges that, on or about June 1, the
Respondent hired part-time salesmen in order to undermine
the Union and destroy its majority status.' 7 The record
reflects that five such part-time employees commenced em-
ployment for the Respondent at some point in time near the
end of May or first part of June. Their names were Quinn,
Mason, Dunayer, Campo, and Kelly. Critical to the issues in
this case is exactly when they started working for the
Respondent and the purpose for which they were hired The
Respondent contends that they were employed because it was
unable to secure full-time salesmen, which it needed, and that
it was under a directive from the Ford Motor Company to
expand its sales force Therefore, argues the Respondent,
although it was generally against company policy, it employed
the "part-timers" as a last resort
The full-time salesmen consistently testified that the part-
timers did not commence working at the Respondent until at
least the evening of June 1. Thus, Walker testified that during
that evening he first noticed three of these men (Kelly, Mason,
and Dunayer) in conversation with Pedersen on the showroom
floor, that neither of them actually sold cars on the floor that
night, but Used Car Manager Console did add their names to
the "up sheet."' 8 Walker queried Console as to who they
were, and the latter replied that they were new salesmen who
would be commencing work that evening or the next evening
on the floor. Walker then inquired of General Manager
Pedersen why the new salesmen were there and Pedersen
replied that this was just the beginning-that "if necessary [he
would] put 35 men on the floor." Continuing his inquiry,
Walker asked why the Company was hiring new salesmen, to
which Pedersen replied that it was not unusual, that " we
did it the last time we beat you . . we will do it this time "
McCarthy testified that the first time he noticed the
part-timers was Friday evening, June 2, when he saw three of
them (he did not know their names) in Pedersen's office. He
also saw them that evening at the "steak and beans dinner"
held at the restaurant across the street from the Company.' 9
The three part-timers were at the dinner but were apparently
not introduced to the remainder of the group since McCarthy
testified that he assumed they were friends of Console because
"they seemed very friendly to him " According to McCarthy,
the three part-timers first appeared on the sales floor the
following Saturday morning and brought the sales force to 11
instead of 8.
Both Karsh and Indich testified that they first noticed the
part-timers during the evening of Friday, June 2, the latter
stating that the names of the part-timers were placed on the
"up sheet" for the first time that night. However, Karsh
testified that they (the part-timers) did not actually commence
"taking ups" until the following day.
The Respondent's evidence reflects that it had been
attempting to employ automobile salesmen since at least April,
having advertised to that effect in the New York Times 20
However, such advertisement sought men who were interested
in selling as a career and did not mention part-time salesmen.
Indeed, as previously noted, it was theretofore Respondent's
policy not to hire part-time salesmen, both Monahan and
Pedersen testifying that it was done on this occasion because
of the lack of success in being able to secure full-time
salesmen.21
Pedersen testified that, as a result of this determination to
employ part-time salesmen, he commenced interviewing pro-
spective applicants during the latter part of April and the first
part of May, and that although he was "reluctant to use
part-time men but having no alternative, [he] put them to
work in the early part of May." (Emphasis added.) However,
14 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of
McCarthy, neither Monahan nor Pedersen being interrogated concerning
this conversation
15 At that time , the employees paid for their own hospitalization.
16 The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Karsh,
again, neither Monahan nor Pedersen was interrogated concerning the
interview . Indreh testified that after the dinner hour on June 1, he and
Sinisgelli were called into a customer 's booth by Monahan in the
presence of Pedersen . In this interview , Monahan interrogated them
concerning signing union cards, advised them of the previous campaign
in which the Union was defeated , acknowledged that he was not
allowed to make promises or threats and did not at the time, but
requested consideration "when it boiled down to a final vote."
Although, as in the instances set forth above, neither Pedersen nor
Monahan was interrogated concerning this particular interview , neither
was Sinisgelli . Under these circumstances , and since any finding thereon
would not expand the nature or scope of my recommended order, I
make no finding or conclusion respecting this conversation.
17 As previously noted , the employee complement of Respondent's
full-time salesmen was eight as of that date , of which five had signed
union authorization cards
18 The "up sheet" consists of a list of salesmen and is issued daily
The name at the top of the list first greets a customer as the latter
comes into the showroom . After that, the next on the list moves into
the "up position ," and so on in rotation . Only salesmen listed on the up
sheet are allowed to approach customers on the floor of the showroom.
19 The "steak and beans dinner " was a sales promotion scheme of
Respondent instituted in May. The regular salesmen were divided into
two teams of four each , and the team that sold the most cars ate steak
while the other team had beans for dinner.
20 See Respondent 's Exhibits I(a) and I(b)
21 Monahan testified that prior to May 1967 the only man he could
recall who worked for the Company on a part -time basis was Mason
The latter had formerly worked for the Company as a regular salesman
until August 1966, when he left to return to his old trade as a
tool-and-die maker However , from that time until he returned to work
for the Company during the latter part of May or first part of June
1967, he utilized telephone and office space at Monahan on a part-time
basis (usually on Wednesday and Friday nights ) in an attempt to sell a
few automobiles . During that period he worked no set number of hours
or days, and did not appear on the "up sheet " There is no evidence that
he appeared on the Company 's regular employee payroll during the
period from August 1966 until he was "reemployed " near the end of
May or the first part of June 1967, and I would therefore find that he
was not a regular part-time employee during this period.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
none of the part-time salesmen testified that they actually
commenced working in the early part of May, nor do company
records so reflect. Thus, Quinn testified that he began working
for Monahan during "either the latter part of May or the
beginning of June," and that it was after a "party" had been
given for the other men because he recalled the other men
telling him about the party.22 Quinn testified that he first
spoke to Pedersen 2 or 3 weeks earlier but he had received no
firm commitment from the Company at that time
Dunayer had formerly been a full-time salesman for the
Company but was terminated sometime in 1966. He was
reemployed, according to his testimony, in "either May or
June. I think it was-I don't remember exactly." Dunayer
asserted that he was friendly with Console, the Respondent's
used car manager, having been in the same army reserve unit,
and that they had met for lunch from time to time. He related
that Console called him one evening and stated that there was
a problem at the Company, i.e., that the salesmen had been
abusing the customers and that "they [the Company] needed
a little help." Console asked if Dunayer was available for work,
and the latter proceeded to the Company's premises and spoke
to Pedersen the same evening. Pedersen mentioned that a few
salesmen were trying to get the Union in and were not "really
working," but were "fooling around" and abusing the cus-
tomers. Although Pedersen sought the assistance of Dunayer
and offered him a part-time position, i.e., that he could work
"part-time at [his] convenience," he also told Dunayer that
there "could be picketing and you would have to cross the
picket line ... [and] there could be threats." Nevertheless,
Dunayer accepted part-time employment and worked for the
Company for 6 weeks.
As previously set forth, when James Mason23 was employ-
ed as a regular part-timer by the Company, it was "around the
end of May, the beginning of June." This is as definite as
Mason's testimony came respecting the exact day he com-
menced "taking ups." On that occasion, he had a conversation
with Console in which the latter told him that the men were
trying to join the Union and, as a result, they were "snore or
less neglecting their job ... abusing customers and stuff like
that." Console asked Mason if he "would take ups ... in other
words, go on officially as a part-timer," and Mason agreed.
Jack Campo, another part-timer, testified that he was
employed by Console, who was a personal friend of Campo,
22 This was apparently a reference to the "steak and beans" dinner
that the Company had given during the evening of Friday, June 2
23 The real name of this person is Salvator Martorana, but he
assumed the alias of Mason "to make it easy for the public " He will be
so referred to in this Decision.
24 This was clearly a reference to the "steak and beans dinner,"
heremabove referred to, and places the date of Campo's conversation
with Console as the evening of Friday , June 2.
25 The foregoing findings are based upon the preheating affidavit of
Campo which was incorporated in the record herein as Campo's
testimony , through stipulation of the parties.
26 Memorial Day in 1967 fell on Tuesday , May 30.
27 As previously noted, Console was not called as a witness although
no reason was offered for failure to do so. This failure warrants the
inference that , if he were called , his testimony would not be favorable
to the Respondent. See, United Mineral & Chemical Corporation, 155
NLRB 1890 , 1892 at footnote 4, see also Automotive Textile Products
Co Inc. , 171 NLRB No . 157, section III, paragraph 5, of the Trial
Examiner 's Decision.
28 Respondent, in its brief (page 2 ), relied heavily upon a finding of
the Regional Director in the representation case (29-RC-762, Re-
spondent 's Exhibit 4) as follows "In the last three days of May 1967,
that "one Friday in May or June of 1967, Console called me at
my regular full-time job and told me that Monahan was
thinking of increasing its sales force." Campo went to the
showroom of the Company the same night he received the
telephone call and attended the dinner which Monahan ran in
celebration of a contest between the automobile salesmen.24
Campo further testified that he believed he was the only new
employee that started that night-that Dunayer had started to
work at Monahan before that and Quinn started a day or two
afterwards Campo continued to work for Monahan 5 nights
per week plus all day Saturday, until he quit in September 25
Charles T. Kelly testified that he had worked for the
Company on a regular basis from 1962 to 1964, and was
rehired at the beginning of May 1967, that he heard that the
Company was looking for salesmen, so he went over one
afternoon and talked to Pedersen about a job, that Pedersen
agreed to hire him in the early part of May and that he actually
started work before Memorial Day,26 that at the time he
commenced working there he is "sure" that Dunayer was
working there and he "believe[d]" that Mason was working
However, as previously noted, Dunayer testified that at his
employment interview with Pedersen the latter advised that
the Union was trying to get in, and Pedersen admittedly had
no knowledge of any union activity until his conversation with
Shlfnn on the morning of June 1. Similarly, with respect to
Mason, it is to be recalled that he testified that in his original
employment interview with Console, the latter advised that the
men were trying to join the Union. Although Console did not
testify, it may be reasonably assumed that his testimony in this
respect would be similar to that of Pedersen.27
These facts, taken with all the other testimony in the record
which consistently showed that the part-time employees did
not commence working until after the Union's request for
recognition, lead me inescapably to the conclusion, and I find,
that the part-time employees were not committed to employ-
ment by the Respondent until after the Union's request for
recognition on the morning of June 1 2 8
While there is no doubt that the evidence reflects that the
Company was seeking to add at least two salesmen to its
employee complement prior to its knowledge of union activity
among the salesmen, substantial evidence shows that no firm
commitment was made to employ part-time salesmen, and no
part-time salesmen actually commenced work, until subsequent
the Employer hired 5 part - time employees, who commenced work in
the period between May 29 and June 1, 1967 ." Although the whole
record in the representation case was not made a part of the record in
the instant proceeding , and therefore is not before me, the foregoing
finding is apparently based upon the testimony of Respondent's then
office manager , Pizzola, who did testify in the representation case as
well as in the instant case , and some of his testimony in the former was
incorporated in the latter. Thus he testified that for the week ending
June 1, 13 employees appeared on the payroll of the Company, but he
was unable to state with accuracy what date they actually commenced
work. Based on W-4 forms which the employees themselves filled out
subsequent to their employment , Pizzola made notations on the payroll
records as to when they were hired, and some of the notations indicated
May 29 and May 31 ( the W-4 forms themselves were not introduced
into the record, the Company contending that it was unable to locate
them ), however, since the forms were completed by the employees
themselves and they later testified to circumstances respecting their date
of employment subsequent to the dates noted by Pizzola on the payroll
records, as hereinabove described, I ascribe very little probative value to
such notations , and prefer to rely on the oral testimony of the witnesses
respecting the circumstances in which they undertook employment with
the Company.
MONAHAN FORD CORP 209
to the Union's request for recognition In the light of
all the testimony in the record as a whole, including
particularly the Respondent's antiunion animus and its agents'
revelation to the employees that such a tactic was used to
defeat the Union in a pnor campaign, plus their statements to
the part-time employees themselves upon their being inter-
viewed for employment, I find, in agreement with the
contentions of the General Counsel, that the employment of
the part-time employees, in the circumstances revealed in the
instant record, was in order to undermine the Union and to
destroy its majority status among the salesmen.29
3. Other allegations of interference,
restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges that from June 1 to June 28 the
Respondent reduced the earnings of its employees by dis-
approving sales they had arranged with potential customers,
and by assigning said employees to more arduous and less
agreeable job tasks because they had joined and assisted the
Union. The evidence disclosed that the "arduous and less
agreeable job tasks" consisted of requiring the regular salesmen
to make a large number of daily telephone calls from a
telephone list, to address and mail 50 postal cards a day to
potential customers, to regularly go out and place "Would you
take it" cards on automobiles parked in parking lots,30 by
depraving the salesmen of his free demonstrator car altogether
or by substituting a " junker"3 i for a late model car which the
salesman normally had as a demonstrator; and by rigidly
enforcing a rule requiring the salesman who was at the head of
the "up sheet" to remain rigidly in a small square on the sales
floor
Without detailing individual testimony, it may be stated
that the full-time salesmen consistently related that prior to
the Union's request for recognition, the working rules and
conditions at Respondent's facility were relatively lax. That is
to say, the salesmen normally used telephone calls to follow up
prospective sales but rarely used the telephone list to call
prospective customers "cold" except dunng periods of the
year when the sales are slow.32 Similarly, with respect to the
postal cards and "Would you take its," such sales promotion
devices were used from time to time, but the rule was never as
strictly and rigidly enforced pnor to June 1 as it was
afterwards 33
The evidence is similarly consistent with respect to the
requirement that following June 1, the salesman in the "up
position" was required to maintain himself rigidly in a
foot-square box (marked by terra cotta tile) on the showroom
floor whereas previously he was able to move around the
showroom and talk to other salesmen dunng the absence of
the customers. Also, the testimony reflects that those salesmen
who had late model demonstration cars were asked to turn
their cars in (assertedly to be sold to customers) and were
either not replaced at all, or ")unkers" were substituted.
Pedersen testified that, dunng the course of a year, the
average salesman would change his demonstration car at least
three or four times While there is a possible coincidence that a
substantial number of such cars would be called in within a
period of a couple weeks,34 the record evidence is sufficiently
substantial, in my judgment, to sustain the General Counsel's
contention on this issue. Accordingly, I find that the Respond-
ent, subsequent to June 1, stepped up the enforcement of its
work rules and practices as aforementioned for the purpose of
harassing the full-time salesmen and in retaliation for their
union membership and activities.35
Similarly, I find substantial evidence to support the
contention of the General Counsel that subsequent to the
Union's request for recognition Pedersen disapproved several
"deals" proposed by the full-time salesmen respecting sales of
automobiles to prospective customers, which would probably
have been approved under previous standards Thus Walker
testified that on the afternoon of June 1, immediately
following the Shifrin-Pedersen incident above described, the
latter came to Walker with a folder regarding the sale of a
Thunderbird automobile which Walker had made with a
customer named Fleis several days previously, in which there
was a profit involved of some $450 to $500. The deal involved
a car which had to be ordered because Fleis did not like the
color of the car the Company had in stock Pedersen directed
Walker to call Fleis and tell him to take the car in stock or to
forget about the deal. Walker reminded Pedersen that Monahan
had been involved with him (Walker) in the transaction and
both of them had tried to sell Fleis the car in stock, and he
refused it. He asked Pedersen if it were possible to locate
29 1 have also considered significant to this issue the fact that the
part - time employees worked for Respondent for only a short period,
Kelly being the only one still working for the Company at the time of
the hearing As far as the record shows , none of them were replaced.
30 This is a sales promotion device for the purpose of interesting a
potential customer in a new car It states on its face , "Would you take
IX number of dollars] for this car in trade on any car in our stock""
and lists the various models of cars in the Respondent 's inventory. The
card has imprinted the name of the Respondent , its address, and
telephone number and at the bottom is a blank in which the salesman
may insert his name (see General Counsel's Exhibit 4).
31 A junker is, as the name implies, an older, less prestigious used
car which normally sells for $25 or $50
32 Karsh testified that from the end of March until the middle of
August is normally a busy season of the year This testimony was not
refuted by the Respondent except that Monahan testified that during
May and June 1967 there was a shortage of cars because the Ford Motor
Company closed down their plant early that year in order to change
over to 1968 models
33 Pedersen 's denial in this respect is not credited . Respondent, in
its brief, points to Respondent 's Exhibit 3 which is an order for 25,000
imprinted postal cards , such order being dated April 7, 1967, long
before the union campaign began However , I do not understand that
the General Counsel denies that the sending of postal cards to
prospective customers is a reasonable business practice or that Re-
spondent 's salesmen utilized such a practice in the past . The point is
that the practice was not strictly enforced prior to June 1, and
afterwards it was, the reasonable inference being, when considered in
the context of Respondent 's other antiunion acts and conduct , that it
was an arduous task enforced as a retaliatory measure for the
employees ' union activities
34 Indich did not have a demonstrator , but rather borrowed other
salesmen's cars However , after May 31, he was advised that he was not
allowed to borrow their cars anymore.
35 See, e g., West Side Plymouth , Inc., 170 NLRB No 98 The
Respondent argues that since "all employees , union as well as nonunion,
were required to perform the same duties ," no violation may be found.
This argument is similar to that which runs that an employer must
discriminate against all union members before a finding may be made
that he discriminated against one. This argument has been heretofore
advanced and rejected Nachman Corporation v. N L R .B., 337 F 2d
421 (C.A. 7), and cases cited . Moreover , the evidence shows that the
rules were not enforced as rigidly against the part-time employees.
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
another car through the area locator, which is a common
practice. Pedersen advised that he had already called the
locator and that there was no car of this description available,
and that Fleis would either take the one they had in stock or
there would be no deal Whereupon, Walker did as directed,
and Fleis came to the agency the next day and secured his
deposit money 36 Walker testified that as a result of this
transaction he lost $40 a week in salary and a commission of
roughly $100.37
Employee Jack Indich testified that following the union
demand for recognition, he presented to Pedersen what he
(Indich) considered a "pretty good deal" on a trade for a new
1967 Mustang. Pedersen refused to accept the deal unless
Indich secured a couple hundred dollars more from the
customer. The customer refused to pay the extra money After
Indich left the Respondent's agency and went to work for
another Ford agency, the same customer called him at the new
agency and Indich sold the customer the same car at the
identical figure which he tried to sell it to him at the
Respondent's
In addition to the foregoing, employee McCarthy testified
that following the Union's request for recognition deals which
were formerly approved were no longer being accepted; that
the minimum deal went up from $100 to $150, and that on
some occasions the latter figure was turned down. Giacopelli
testified that Pedersen attempted to turn down his deals, but
"then they gave it to me because I argued the point."3 8
In defense, Pedersen, pointing out that he himself is paid a
percentage of profit, considered it ridiculous that he would
"throw away [his] own income " In addition to this con-
tention, I have considered that there may be factors other than
simply the amount of monetary profit which are involved in
making a judgment as to whether to accept a deal. Under all
the circumstances, and in view of the Respondent's strong
antiunion animus and specific threats to employees to limit
their income because of their union adherence, I believe it to
be a reasonable inference that Pedersen was prepared to forego
a small profit in order to further harass and coerce the
employees in retaliation for the latter's union activities.
Accordingly, as previously noted, I find and conclude that the
stricter standards imposed for accepting deals was but another
tactic utilized by Respondent to interfere with, restrain, and
coerce the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
D. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations
The complaint alleges that the harassments and depriva-
tions, above described, forced the five cards signers (Indich,
McCarthy, Karsh, Walker, and Giacopelli) to leave Respond-
ent's employ on various dates near the end of June. The
evidence submitted by the five generally supports this allega-
tion Thus, McCarthy testified that on June 19 he was called
36 According to Walker's testimony, Fleis immediately went to a
competitive dealership and bought the identical car, the salesman having
located such car in another dealership , so that the car was available.
37 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of
Walker. Pedersen testified that he did not recall the deal , which I believe
is unlikely . Fleis was not called as a witness.
38 Giacopelli conceded that Pedersen approved a deal on June 3
involving a profit of $139.
into Pedersen's office (Pedersen and Monahan being present)
and interrogated as to how he then stood with reference to the
Union When McCarthy remained silent, Pedersen said, "Of
course, you realize that you are never going to sell another car
at Monahan Ford." Pedersen then offered to exchange a letter
of recommendation (which McCarthy could write for himself)
for a letter of resignation from McCarthy. He threatened that,
in the absence of such a letter from McCarthy, the Respond-
ent, upon an inquiry from a future employer, certainly could
not "give [McCarthy] a good recommendation at all "
McCarthy was g.ven a few hours to think over the matter and
discuss it with his wife
About 5 p m. the same day (June 19), Pedersen called him
back into his office and asked if he had reached a decision
When McCarthy advised that he had decided to "stick it out,"
Pedersen became upset and threatened that he (McCarthy)
"would never work at another Ford dealer in the country,"
and took away the latter's demonstrator, a 1968 Mustang.39
Some of the other statements made by Respondent' s agents
during the exit interviews are revealing as to Respondent's
motivation Thus Karsh testified that in speaking to Pedersen,
the latter said, "Now that I have the union beat, you are
welcome to stay." Walker testified that he gave the keys to his
demonstrator to Console who smiled and stated, "... we told
you we would beat you."
Giacopelli testified that Console told him, "It looks like
you lost the battle."40
The Respondent argues that the five quit of their own
volition as a consequence of resentment caused by Respond-
ent's hiring of the part- time salesmen . That may have been a
factor in their decision, but it is clearly no defense since, as I
have found hereinabove, the hiring of the part- time salesmen
was simply one of the tactics utilized by Respondent to thwart
the union activities of the employees and to undermine their
majority status Accordingly, I find and conclude that, by
engaging in the harassing tactics above described, the Respond-
ent sought to make the working conditions of the regular,
full-time salesmen intolerable and to force them to leave its
employment The motivating purpose of Respondent was
therefore, at least m part, the discouragement of union
membership and activities, and the terminations of employ-
ment constituted constructive discharges in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act a i
E. The 8(a)(5) Allegation
1 have heretofore found that by May 31, five of the
full-time automobile salemen of Respondent had designated
and selected the Union as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining, that during the morning of June 1, the
Union requested recognition and bargaining in a unit of
automobile salesmen, and on the same date the Respondent
39 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of
McCarthy, as corroborated , in part, by Walker, who overheard part of
the conversation at the instance of McCarthy. Neither Monahan nor
Pedersen was interrogated concerning this interview.
40 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of
the employees involved As above noted , Console did not testify and
Pedersen was not interrogated as to the exit interview with Karsh.
41 See N.L R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Div., 339
F.2d 203 (C.A. 6, 1964 ), and cases cited therein.
MONAHAN FORD CORP.
failed and refused to recognize and bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in the said unit 42
I have also heretofore found that at the time of the Union's
request for recognition, the employee complement of the
Respondent in the aforesaid unit was eight, accordingly, at the
time of the request the Union clearly represented a majority
(five) of the employees in the unit The question remains
whether or not the Respondent's failure and refusal to bargain
at that time constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
The legal principles respecting this issue were succinctly
stated by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
N.L R B. v. Philamon Laboratories, Inc, 298 F.2d 176, 179, as
follows
The act imposes a duty to bargain in good faith upon
request whenever a labor organization has been designated
by a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining
unit. The employer must recognize and bargain with such
an organization whether or not it has been certified by the
Labor Board. United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas
Oak Flooring Co, 351 U.S. 62 ..(1956), N.L.R.B. v
Sunrise Lumber & Trim Corp, 241 F 2d 620 (2 Cir., 1957),
cert. denied 355 U.S. 818 . J1957). To be sure, an
employer laboring under a good faith doubt as to a union's
majority status need not extend recognition Nevertheless,
in the absence of such a doubt, the employer has no vested
right to an election. N L R B. v Trlmfit of California, 211
F 2d 206 (9 Cir , 1954)
In N.L R B v Elliott-Williams Co., Inc, 345 F 2d 460
(C A. 7), the court stated
The duty to bargain is not dependent on a Board election
and certification. An employer may refuse an unequivocal
demand for recognition and bargaining only on the basis of
a good faith doubt of the genuineness of the union's claims,
and the union does not withdraw or waive its demand by
seeking an election when the employer makes it clear that it
will not recognize the union. [Cases cited.] Where as in this
case, the union had proof of its majority status readily
available and respondent chose not to learn the facts, it
"took the chance of what they might be." [Cases cited.]
Applying the foregoing principles to the facts in the case at
bar, it is clear that a violation has been established Thus, the
Respondent's agents chose to ignore and reject the Union's
claim of majority status and request for recognition and
bargaining. No questions concerning majority status were
raised and no doubt of such status, oral or written, good-faith
or otherwise, was asserted 43 In short, Respondent "chose not
to learn the facts, [and] `took the chance of what they might
be.' " As I have previously found, the facts sustained the
Union's claim.
But the Respondent did not sit idly by and await the
Union's next move. Rather, the Company's president and
general manager immediately embarked upon a campaign to
disabuse the employees of the advantages of union organiza-
tion. Such campaign took the form of threats, promises of
42 The complaint alleges, the answer does not deny, and I find that
the following constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
All full-time and regular part -time automobile salesmen employed by
Respondent at its Flushing , New York, location, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees , professional employees,
211
benefits, harassing and intimidatory tactics, and the hiring of
new employees, all of which was designed to dissipate and
undermine the employees' adherence to the Union. Clearly,
then, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Re-
spondent declined to recognize and bargain with the Union not
because of any good-faith doubt of the Union's majority, but
in order to dissipate that majority. I therefore find that the
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its interstate operations
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully refused to
recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the
representative of the majority of its employees in an appro-
priate unit, I shall recommend that the Respondent, upon
request, accord such recognition to and bargain collectively
with the Union, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
It having been found that the Respondent constructively
discharged its employees Jack Indich, Gerald James McCarthy,
Leonard A Karsh, John J. Walker, and Frank Giacopelli on or
about the dates set forth by their names in the complaint, it
will be recommended that Respondent offer such employees
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him, by payment to each of them
of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned
as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of the
offer of reinstatement in a manner consistent with Board
policies as set forth in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289. Interest on backpay shall be computed in a manner set
forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716.
As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent
were of a character which go to the very heart of the Act, it
will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
from infringing in any manner upon the rights of the
employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following
guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the
Act....
43 Contrary to Respondent 's contentions in its brief , the Union was
not under a duty affirmatively to demonstrate its majority status in the
absence of any challenge thereto made by Respondent 1N.L.R B. v.
Trimfit of California, Inc., 211 F.2d 206, 210 (C.A. 9)].
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (d) Imposing stricter or more arduous working conditions
upon its employees because of their selection of the Union as
their bargaining representative.
(e) Hiring additional employees for the purpose of under-
mining the Union or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
(f) Failing or refusing to bargain collectively with the
above-named Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in the unit herein found
appropriate.
(g) Discouraging membership in the above-named Union, or
any other labor organization of its employees, by discrimina-
torily discharging, or in any other manner discriminating
against, any employee in regard to his hire, tenure, or
condition of employment
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
2 Take the following affirmative action found necessary
and designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the
aforesaid unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing into a signed contract.
(b) Offer to Jack Indich, Gerald James McCarthy, Leonard
A. Karsh, John J. Walker, and Frank Giacopelli immediate,
full, and unconditional reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other 'rights, privileges, or working conditions, and
make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered, in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Notify the employees named in subparagraph (b) above
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to author-
ized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records relevant or necessary in computing the
amount of backpay due, and effectuation of provision for
reemployment, as herein provided.
1 Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing, the Respondent
herein, is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act, as found hereinabove, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment of the named discnminatees, to discourage
membership in a labor organization, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. All full-time and regular part-time automobile salesmen
employed by the Respondent at its Flushing, New York,
location, excluding all other employees, office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. At all times since May 31, the Union has been the duly
designated collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit, within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
7. By failing and refusing, on June 1, and at all times
thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
aforesaid unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of 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, it is recommended that
the National Labor Relations Board order that the Re-
spondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating any of its employees regarding
their activities on behalf of Local 868, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening its employees with loss of jobs, wages,
blacklisting in the industry, or other reprisals if the employees
select union representation.
(c) Promising its employees benefits and improvements in
their working conditions and terms of employment to induce
them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
Union.
MONAHAN FORD CORP.
(e) Post at the Company's place of business in Flushing,
New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix."44 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29 of the Board, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of the Company, shall
be posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other matenal.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith. 5
44 In 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 "
45 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPEN DI X
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 discourage membership in or activities on
behalf of Local 868, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
or any other labor organization, by discharging any of our
employees or in any other manner discriminating against
our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any other term or condition of employment, because of
their union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
regarding their union sympathies in order to discourage our
employees from joining, remaining members of, or assisting
Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge,
loss of wages, blacklisting in the industry, or other reprisals
if they select union representation.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits and
improvements in their working conditions to induce them
to refrain from becoming or remaining members of a union
WE WILL NOT impose stricter or more arduous working
conditions upon our employees because of their selection of
the Union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT hire additional employees for the pur-
pose of undermining the Union or otherwise to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights
213
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local
868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate unit with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or remain members of or assist the above-named or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Jack Indich, Gerald James McCarthy,
Leonard A. Karsh, John J. Walker, and Frank Giacopelli full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and WE WILL make them whole for
any loss they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
WE WILL notify the above-named persons if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
WE WILL, on request, recognize and bargain with Local
868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time automobile salesmen
employed by Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing at
its Flushing, New York, location, excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
MONAHAN FORD CORPORATION
OF FLUSHING
(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 matenal.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct-
ly with the Board's Regional Office, 4th Floor, 16 Court
Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 596-3535.