Nathan's Famous of Yonkers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 131 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

NATHAN'S FAMOUS OF YONKERS, INC.
Nathan 's Famous of Yonkers , Inc. and Local 50,
American Bakery and Confectionery Workers
Union, AFL-CIO and Local 1115, Restaurant,
Dining Room and Luncheonette Employees Union,
and Local 350, Bakery and Confectionery Union,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Nathan 's Famous of Yonkers , Inc. and Local 50,
American Bakery and Confectionery Workers
Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 2-CA-11732 and
2-RC-15015
October 28, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICA-
TION OF REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Regional Director for Region 2 issued his Decision
and Direction of Election in Case 2-RC-15015 on
December 13, 1968, in which he, inter alia, directed
that an election be held among the full-time and
regular part-time restaurant employees, with certain
exclusions , at the Company's Yonkers, New York,
place of business.' The election was held on January
10, 1969, the tally of ballots showing that the
Petitioner, Local 50, American Bakery and Confec-
tionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO, had received 32
votes, incumbent Intervenor, Local 350, no votes, and
Intervenor, Local 1115, Restaurant, Dining Room
and Luncheonette Employees Union, 20 votes. Two
ballots were challenged. Thereafter Local 350 and
Local 1115 each filed objections to the election
requesting that the election be set aside on the ground,
inter alia, that the Company had failed to provide an
election eligibility list as required by the Board's
decision in Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.
On July 1, 1969, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 2 issued a Supplemental Decision and
Direction of Second Election in which he found merit
in the Intervenors' objections based on the absence of
the Excelsior eligibility list, found all other objections
to be without merit, and directed a second election be
held.
Meanwhile, on January 21 and 28, 1969, Local 50
had filed charges alleging that the Company had
engaged in certain unlawful conduct under Section
8(a)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act intended to
1 The Company and incumbent Intervenor , Local 350, Bakery and
Confectionery Workers Union , Bakery and Confectionery Union,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , filed requests for review of the Regional Director's
131
discourage membership in and support for the
Charging Union and intended to assist the Interve-
nors in the representation proceeding. Then on July
14, 1969, Local 50 filed in the representation proceed-
ing its Request for Review and/or Motion to Vacate
the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and
Direction of Second Election. Thereafter on August
25, the Board granted the request and decided that "in
light of the pending unfair labor practice allegations
... further investigation or hearing is necessary to
determine whether the Employer's failure to furnish
an Excelsior list constitutes-in all the circumstances
of this particular case-a valid basis upon which to set
aside the first election ." Thus, the Board returned the
representation proceeding to the Regional Director
for further appropriate processing.
On September 12, 1969, the Regional Director
issued his complaint in the unfair labor practices
proceeding alleging that the Company had violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Act.2 Four days
later he issued his order consolidating Cases
2-CA-11732 and 2-RC-15015. On October 17, 1969,
the Company filed its answer to the complaint in
which, inter alia, it denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices and requested the complaint be
dismissed. Subsequently, on November 3, 1969, the
Regional Director issued his order amending com-
plaint.
On or about November 12, 1969, the parties to the
consolidated cases, including the General Counsel,
entered into a stipulation, in which they requested the
transfer of this proceeding to the Board. In the
stipulation the parties in effect agreed that the formal
papers filed in the complaint case and the record in
the representation case constitute the entire record in
this proceeding and further agreed that no oral
testimony was either necessary or desired. They
waived their right to a hearing before a Trial
Examiner, the making of findings of fact and
conclusions of law by a Trial Examiner, and the
issuance of a Trial Examiner's Decision and Recom-
mended Order. The Parties reserved the right to file
briefs. The Board approved the stipulation and
granted the request to transfer the case on November
28, 1969. Thereafter all parties filed briefs.
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.
Decision and Direction The requests were denied by the Board on January
9, 1969
2 The Regional Director had previously dismissed the 8(a)(5) allegations
of the charges and Local 50's appeal to the General Counsel was denied
186 NLRB No. 19
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding, including the briefs of the parties,3 and
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company maintains an office and place of
business at 2290 Central Park Avenue in the city of
Yonkers, New York, where it has at all times material
been engaged in the operation of a restaurant. During
the past year, the Company's gross revenue from its
restaurant operations was in excess of $500,000 and
during the same period it purchased, and had
delivered, from points outside the State of New York
food and beverages valued in excess of $50,000.
Accordingly, we find, in agreement with the stipula-
tion of the parties, that the Employer's operations
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this
proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties agree , and we find , that Local 50,
American Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union,
AFL-CIO; Local 350 , Bakery and Confectionery
Workers Union , Bakery and Confectionery Union,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America ; and Local
1115, Restaurant, Dining Room and Luncheonette
Employees Union , are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. Local 50 filed its petition in the representation
case on September 17, 1968, seeking an election
among the full-time and regular part-time employees
at the Company's Yonkers restaurant. Local 350 was
permitted to intervene on the basis of a contractual
interest and Local 1115 on the basis of three
authorization cards. As stated, the election was held
on January 10, 1969, with Local 50 receiving 32 votes,
Local 1115 receiving 20, and Local 350 receiving
none.
At all times material Local 1115 has represented
certain of the Company's employees at its Coney
Island restaurant and has had a bargaining agreement
containing a union-security clause covering such
employees. On October 24, 1968, Irwin Mandell, the
Company's agent and supervisor, transferred Adolfo
Nieves, John Cadges, and Carlos Rodiguez, from its
3 The Company, Local 350, and Local 1115 request oral argument
Their request is hereby denied as the record in this proceeding, including
Coney Island to its Yonkers restaurant , said transfers
being temporary and for the purpose of assisting
Local 1115 to obtain a showing of interest in order to
intervene in the representation proceeding. Also on
that date, Mandell urged and solicited employees
prior to their transfer to the Yonkers restaurant to
sign cards designating Local 1115 as their representa-
tive for purposes of collective bargaining. Thereafter,
on December 10, 1968, George Sayegh, the Compa-
ny's agent and supervisor, promised the employees he
would grant their requests for transfers from one
location to another in order to induce them to assist or
support Local 1115, but threatened not to grant such
requests if the employees supported Local 50. About
10 days later, Sayegh further threatened the employ-
ees with a plant shutdown if they supported Local 50,
while at the same time encouraging the employees to
vote for Local 1115 in the upcoming election. Then on
January 3, 1969, at the Yonkers restaurant Sayegh
promised the employees the Company would hire
their friends and on January 6, 8, and 17 promised the
employees managerial positions and salary increases,
all such promises being made for the purpose of
inducing the employees to assist and support Local
1115. Also on or about January 10, Sayegh designated
an employee to act as an observer for Local 1115 at
the representation election and, subsequently, on
January 17 granted the Yonkers employees wage
increases in order to induce them to assist or support
Local 1115. By the foregoing acts of assistance and
other conduct in support of Local 1115, the Company,
we find, restrained and coerced employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We further find that
by such conduct the Company also violated Section
8(a)(2) of the Act.
2. The General Counsel and Local 50 contend that
the Company additionally violated Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) by continuing to check off dues from
December 1, 1968, to May 1969, allegedly on behalf
of Local 350, when in November 1968 a majority of
the employees had signed and Local 50 had submitted
to the Company dues checkoff revocation forms
effective as of the termination date of the contract.
The Company points out that all checkoff receipts
were placed in escrow during the disputed period, and
argues (1) that there was, during that full period, a
contract in effect, and (2) that in any event there was
no violation because it continued the checkoff not to
assist Local 350, which received none of the dues
money, but rather to protect itself against any claims
by Local 350.
The contractual justification for the checkoff is at
best confusing. The original contract between Local
350 and the Company ran from December 1964 to
the briefs , adequately reflects the issues and the positions of the parties
NATHAN'S FAMOUS OF YONKERS, INC. 133
December 1966. In April 1966, a modification was
executed which carried a May 1969 expiration date,
but in December 1966, on the termination date of the
1964 agreement, the Company and Local 350 execut-
ed another complete contract which ran only to
December 1, 1968. In the representation proceeding
the Regional Director held that the December 1 date
of the last negotiated agreement was the operative
terminal or modification date for contract-bar
purposes.4 The General Counsel and Local 50 now
contend that that date is the relevant date for
termination of the checkoff pursuant to the revoca-
tions. We do not believe that the decision on the
applicability of contract-bar principles is determina-
tive of 8(a)(2) checkoff issues raised here.5
Here, although the contract between the Company
and Local 350 was no bar to an election, it was,
nonetheless, effective at least on its face until May
1969. Whether or not that contract would under
Section 302 of the Act support the continuing
checkoff of dues we do not decide, but we do find that
it created a situation justifying the Company's
concern that despite the contract-bar decision it might
be liable to Local 350 for the checkoff until the
contract's May 1969 expiration. Further, we believe
the Company's good faith in this respect was
demonstrated by the fact that no money was paid over
to Local 350 pursuant to the disputed checkoff but
rather that the checked-off sums were placed in
escrow. In these circumstances where there was a
reasonable basis for the Company's concern for
checkoff liability and where the union received no
financial benefit from the disputed checkoff, we
cannot find that the checkoff from December 1968 to
May 1969 was financial or other support for Local 350
in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act .13
3. It is noted above that Sayegh threatened
employees on December 10, 1968, that the Company
would not grant transfer requests and on December
20 that it would close down if the employees
supported Local 50. Previously-sometime in
October-Jack Marks, a company agent and supervi-
sor, interrogated employees concerning their signing
cards revoking their payroll dues deductions on
behalf of Local 350. Then on or about January 26,
1969, Sayegh ordered the transfers of Alfredo Kerca-
do and Nancy Papalardo from the Company's
Yonkers to its Times Square restaurant, a place of
employment less desirable to them. Papalardo, unlike
Kercado, failed to report for work at the Times
Square restaurant. Thereafter, on January 30, Ike
4 As stated above , the Board denied review of that decision.
5 In effect the General Counsel and Local 50 are asking us to find that a
decision that a contract is a bar is tantamount to finding the contract no
longer exists at least insofar as being effective to support lawful checkoff
under Sec . 302 of the Act, and further that , if the checkoff is unlawful
under Sec . 302, it necessarily violates Sec. 8(a)(2). Our contract-bar rules do
Brown, the Company's agent and supervisor, ordered
Kercado to transfer from Times Square to the Coney
Island restaurant, a place of employment less desira-
ble to Kercado who in consequence refused to report
to work and terminated his employment. The Compa-
ny ordered the foregoing transfers because the
affected employees had joined and assisted Local 50
and engaged in other protected concerted activity and
because they had given testimony under the Act in the
representation proceeding. The foregoing conduct, we
find, clearly undermined employee support for Local
50 and interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in their protected concerted activities in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We find, also,
that the transfers of Kercado and Papalardo and their
termination of employment, which the parties stipu-
lated to be constructive discharges by the Company,
caused by their supporting Local 50 and testifying at a
Board hearing, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the
Act.
IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
As described above, an election was held on
January 10, 1969, in which Local 50, the Petitioner,
received 32 votes; Local 1115, an Intervenor, received
20 votes, and Local 350, the Incumbent, received no
votes. Upon the losing parties' objections based on the
Company's failure to provide the Excelsior list, the
Regional Director set aside the election and directed
that a second election be held. The Board, on Local
50's request for review, concluded that further
consideration was necessary to determine "whether
the Employer's failure to furnish Excelsior list
constitutes-in all the circumstances of this particular
case-a valid basis upon which to set aside the first
election." We now conclude it does not.
In administering our Excelsior list requirement, we
have consistently been aware that a literal application
of the rule may not be appropriate in all situations.?
The essential purpose of that requirement is to help
provide in Board elections an informed electorate on
the theory that employees subject to the propaganda,
information, and argument of all sides competing in
the election will best be able to cast ballots truly
reflecting their free choice and not a choice born in
part of ignorance. Here, of course, no Excelsior list
was supplied. Nonetheless, Local 50 won the election
in the face of company threats to the employees that it
would not grant transfer requests and would close
down if they supported Local 50, in the face of illegal
not, of course, determine whether or not a contract in fact exists and Sec.
302 did not create a new unfair labor practice under Sec. 8 (a)(2). See Salant
& Salant Inc., 88 NLRB 816.
6 See Morton Salt Company, 119 NLRB 1402.
7 See, for example, Program Aids Company, Inc., 163 NLRB 145.
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
company interrogation of employees concerning their
reasons for revoking the Local 350 checkoff authori-
zations, and in the face of the Company's pervasive
illegal assistance and support of Local 1115. Conse-
quently, in view of the Company's illegal activity
clearly intended either directly or indirectly to achieve
the defeat of Local 50, we find it impossible to
conclude that there is any purpose to be served by the
timely submission of an Excelsior list which would be
furthered by setting this election aside because the
Employer declined to furnish the list.8 Thus, we are
convinced that in the circumstances here nothing
would be achieved, other than some empty vindica-
tion of our direction herein or of the "rights" of the
Intervenors to the list, by setting aside the election
because of the Company's refusal to produce the list.
Certainly no substantial interest of the employees in
asserting their free choice would be furthered by such
a result. At most that result would do no more than
permit the Company to benefit from its own past
illegal actions intended to stave off Local 50 recogni-
tion and provide it with another opportunity to defeat
that Union. That, of course, was not one of the
intended purposes of the Excelsior decision.9
In view of all the foregoing, we overrule the
intervening Unions'-Local 350 and Local
1115-objections to the election held on January 10,
1969, and shall, therefore, certify Petitioner Local 50
as the bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Nathan ' s Famous of Yonkers, Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 50 , American Bakery and Confectionery
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and Local 1115 , Restau-
rant , Dining Room and Luncheonette Employees
Union , and Local 350, Bakery and Confectionery
Workers Union , Bakery and Confectionery Union,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interrogating employees in October 1968,
concerning their reasons for signing checkoff authori-
zation revocations , by threatening employees with a
plant shutdown to induce them to refrain from
supporting Local 50 , and by threatening employees
8 There is no evidence that any union was prejudiced more than another
by the withholding of the Excelsior list However , the situation suggests
that the disfavored Local 50 was possibly more prejudiced than favored
Intervenor Local 1115 or incumbent Local 350 which had with the
Company a long-established bargaining relationship embracing union-
security provisions.
9 In Hershey Chocolate Corporation, 121 NLRB 901, 905, with respect to
with a denial of transfer requests if they supported
Local 50, the Respondent Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By soliciting employees to sign cards on behalf
of Local 1115, by temporarily transferring employees
to its Yonkers establishment in order to aid that
Union to obtain a showing of interest in the
representation case, and by the other above-enumer-
ated acts and conduct in support of Local 1115, the
Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1)
of the Act.
5. By transferring Alfredo Kercado and Nancy
Papalardo to locations they considered less desirable
and by constructively discharging them because said
employees had joined and assisted Local 50 and
because they had given testimony under the Act, the
Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Company set forth
in section III, above, occurring in connection with the
Respondent Company's operations described in
section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial 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.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Company
violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4) we shall order
that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
As we have found that the Respondent Company
discriminated against Alfredo Kercado and Nancy
Papalardo by transferring them to less desirable
locations and by causing their constructive discharg-
es, we shall order that the Respondent Company offer
them immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
its contract-bar rules, the Board stated that they "are compelled neither by
the Act nor by judicial decision , but are rather discretionary rules which
may be applied or waived as the facts in a given case may require in the
interests of effectuating the policies of the Act" That comment is, in our
opinion , equally applicable to the direction than an Excelsior list be
supplied
NATHAN'S FAMOUS OF YONKERS, INC.
equivalent positions at its Yonkers establishment,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, by payment to each of
them of a sum of money equal to the amount he
normally would have earned from the date of his
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings, to which shall be added interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum, in accord with the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Finally, in view of the pervasive nature of the
Respondent Company's unfair labor practices, we
shall order that it cease and desist from in any other
manner infringing upon employees' rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders Nathan's Famous of
Yonkers, Yonkers, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their rea-
sons for signing checkoff authorization revocation
cards.
(b) Threatening employees that it will close down
and that it will not grant their transfer requests to
induce them to refrain from supporting Local 50 or
any other union.
(c) Encouraging membership in, or support for,
Local 1115 or any other labor organization by
encouraging employees to sign union authorization
cards, by promising or granting benefits to encourage
support for Local 1115 or any other labor organiza-
tion, or in any other manner unlawfully encouraging
employees to assist or support any labor organization.
(d) Discouraging membership in and activities on
behalf of Local 50 or any other labor organization by
discriminatorily transferring and constructively dis-
charging any employee because of membership in or
support for Local 50 or any other labor organization.
(e) Discriminatorily transferring, constructively
discharging, or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for giving testimony under the Act.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the above-named Union or any other labor
10 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED
BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
135
organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activity for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Alfredo Kercado and Nancy Papalardo
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions at its Yonkers establishment as
provided in that section of the Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify each employee entitled to reinstatement
pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2(a) above, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
(c) Make Alfredo Kercado and Nancy Papalardo
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the
Respondent Company's discrimination against them
in accordance with the provisions set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
authorized 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
necessary or useful in computing the amount of
backpay herein provided.
(e) Post at its places of business at Yonkers, New
York, Times Square, New York City, New York, and
Coney Island, New York, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 2, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent Company has taken to
comply herewith.
shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Local 50, American
Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, has been designated and selected by a
majority of the employees of the Employer Company
in the unit found appropriate , as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining , and that,
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, the said labor
organization is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment , and other terms and conditions of
employment.
Chairman Miller , dissenting in part:
The incumbent Union was , in my view , clearly
entitled to an Excelsior list, unless we are to hold that
incumbent unions are not so entitled or that a union
which does not attract a substantial number of votes
in an election has no standing to object to the election
on Excelsior grounds. My colleagues would not carve
out either exception to the Excelsior requirements, yet
they find no reason here to sustain the objections. I
must dissent from such a decision , which offers
confusion instead of helpful guidance to those who
look to our decisions for intelligible interpretations of
the law.
to induce them to assist that Union or in any other
manner unlawfully assist or support that Union.
WE WILL NOT transfer employees against their
will and cause them to quit working for us because
they have aided and supported Local 50 or any
other union or because they have testified at a
hearing held by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL offer to Alfredo Kercado and Nancy
Papalardo, at our Yonkers, New York, restaurant,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if thosejobs no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will
pay them for any loss of pay because of our
discrimination against them.
WE WILL notify the above employees if present-
ly 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 NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their reasons for revoking the
checkoff authorizations.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with a
shutdown or refusal to grant transfer requests if
they join or otherwise support Local 50, American
Bakery and Confectionery Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT encourage employees to sign
authorization cards for Local 1115, Restaurant,
Dining Room and Luncheonette Employees Un-
ion, promise or grant employees benefits in order
NATHAN'S FAMOUS OF
YONKERS
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 36th Floor Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza,
New York, New York 10007, Telephone
212-264-0300.