R. D. Cortina Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 1285 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

R. D. CORTINA CO., INC. 1285
R. D. Cortina Co., Inc. and District 65 , Retail , TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO. Case 2-CA-11167
April 11, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 27, 1967, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint., Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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, and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,'
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer.
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
orders that the Respondent, R. D. Cortina Co., Inc.,
New York, New York, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
' We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the granting of wage
raises to mailroom employees on January 1, 1967, constituted separate
violations of 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act However, contrary to any implica-
tion in the Trial Examiner's Decision, we do not find significant the timing
of these raises The record indicates that the granting of raises around the
end of the year did not deviate from Respondent's past practice Rather, we
view the amount of the increases as the crucial determinant in relation to
the independent 8(a)(I) finding In all instances, the increases granted
were greater than those given to the same employees in previous years,
and, for some employees, they were four times as great
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge filed December 2, 1966,1 and upon an
amended charge filed March 21, 1967, by District
65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Union), a
complaint and notice of hearing was issued on
March 31, 1967, against R. D. Cortina Co., Inc.
(hereinafter called the Respondent). The complaint
alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by interrogating
employees concerning their membership in and ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union; by threatening em-
ployees with discharge or reprisals if they became
or remained members of the Union; by promising
and granting employees benefits in order to induce
them from becoming or remaining members of the
Union; by discharging employees because of their
activities on behalf of the Union; and by refusing to
bargain with the Union as the majority representa-
tive of the employees in an appropriate bargaining
unit. The Respondent's answer admits certain al-
legations of the complaint, denies others, and
specifically denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices. This case was heard by me on May
9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 1966, in New
York, New York. All parties were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard and to introduce relevant
evidence in support of their respective positions.
The briefs submitted by the General Counsel and
the Respondent and the Respondent's reply brief
have been duly considered by me in arriving at my
decision in this matter.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
evaluation of the witnesses, based on my observa-
tion of their demeanor, and upon all of the relevant
evidence contained in the record, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent is engaged in the business of
producing, selling, and distributing, on a wholesale
and retail basis, language textbooks, phonograph
records, tapes, and related language study materi-
als. The Respondent's principal office and place of
business is located at 136 West 52d Street, New
York, New York.'
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to 1966
2 Although the Respondent compiles and edits the material contained in
the language study courses , the actual publication does not take place at
the Respondent 's premises in New York City. This work is contracted out
to various publishing concerns In a similar manner, the Respondent makes
the master tapes and records at its New York City premises and the actual
manufacture of this materiiFis performed by outside concerns on a con-
tract basis or under a lease arrangement.
170 NLRB No. 146
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the past calendar year , the Respondent
shipped language study materials valued in excess
of $50,000 from its place of business in New York
City directly to customers located in States other
than the State of New York. Accordingly, I find
that the Respondent is, and has been at all times
material herein, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union 's Demand
On May 23, James Hicks, employed as a press-
man by the Respondent, contacted Peter Van Delft,
an organizer for the Union. Hicks told Van Delft
that he wanted the Union to organize the Respond-
ent's establishment and was given authorization
cards to be signed by the employees.' Hicks signed
a card himself and succeeded in getting four other
employees to sign cards for the Union.'
On June 14, Van Delft, accompanied by another
organizer for the Union, Cavanaugh, came to the
Respondent's premises to make a demand for
recognition and to request bargaining. According to
Hicks, he met the union representatives on the side-
walk in front of the building in- order to introduce
them to,R. E.'Livesey, Respondent's vice president.
Hicks testified that Livesey walked up as they stood
on the sidewalk and he made the necessary in-
troductions. Hicks further testified that he accom-
panied the union representatives and Livesey into
the latter's office where he heard Van Delft say that
the Union had a majority of the employees signed
up and would like to discuss the matter "in good
faith." According to Hicks, Livesey replied that he
would be glad to discuss the situation and would
call his attorney. Hicks stated that he thereupon left
the office. Van Delft gave a different version of this
meeting. He testified that he and Cavanaugh met
Hicks outside the Respondent's premises, and they
were introduced to Livesey by Hicks on the side-
walk. Then, according to Van Delft, he and
Cavanaugh went into the reception area and
Livesey went directly to - his office. Van Delft
testified that he gave the receptionist his, card and
asked to see Livesey. The receptionist spoke on the
telephone and nodded her head in the direction of
the door leading to the offices. Van Delft stated
that he and Cavanaugh went into Livesey's office
and were told by Livesey to wait outside in the
reception area as he was busy. Shortly thereafter
Livesey came out into the reception area and spoke
to them.
Livesey gave another account of the events lead-
ing up to the meeting on June 14. He testified that
he received a call from the receptionist while in his
office and he left the office and came into the
reception area. Livesey stated that he met Van
Delft and Cavanaugh for the first time in the recep-
tion area.'
These differing versions of the events leading up
to the Union's demand for recognifion and bargain-
ing are set forth here in detail solely to indicate the
numerous conflicts in testimony-concerning cru-
cial events as well as inconsequential matters-
which permeated this entire hearing. It is my obser-
vation that witnesses for both the General Counsel
and the Respondent displayed a tendency to en-
large, vary, and in some instances even distort the
most simple facts in order to serve the cause for
which they were testifying. While I am mindful that
the passage of time causes certain events to become
obscure or to be recalled in a manner which differs
from the true event, I nonetheless find this ten-
dency too pronounced in this hearing to ignore.
Not only does it obstruct the search for truth in an
area dealing with involved human relationships, but
it is also a factor which must be considered in
determining the reliability of the testimony ad-
vanced concerning crucial matters.
There is no question but that on the morning of
June 14, Van Delft and his companions spoke with
Livesey in the reception area concerning recogni-
tion of the Union. There are conflicting versions,
however, as to what was said and what took place
during this conversation. Van Delft testified that he
claimed recognition on behalf of the Union as the
bargaining representative of the Respondent's em-
ployees. When Livesey questioned which em-
ployees Van Delft claimed to represent, he stated
that he meant the "production people in back."'
According to Van Delft, Livesey stated that the
3 Hicks had been a member of the Union several years before, but was
dropped from the membership rolls in 1963 because of nonpayment of
dues
' These employees were Percides "Pat" Vila , Leo Huff, Joseph Dawson,
and Witty Lloyds. Although Hicks testified Lloyds signed a card on May 23
and that Vila and Huff signed cards the following day, examination of the
cards (G C. Exh. 3A-E) shows the reverse to be true This variance
between the dates on the cards and the testimony is not material however,
as there is no serious contention that these employees did not in fact sign
the cards authorizing the Union to represent them
s The receptionist , Campaigne , testified that the union representatives
remained in the reception area until Livesey came out to meet them Kam-
bos, Respondent 's assistant editor, testified that it -was necessary to pass
through her office from the reception room in order to get to Livesey's of-
fice She stated that on the morning in question the union representatives
did not come through her office while she was there. -
'Van-Delft was making a distinction between the office employees
located immediately behind the receptionist and the employees located in
an area described as the "mailroom "This area is separated from the office
by a wall
R. D. CORTINA CO., INC. 1287
Respondent would not have a union because he had
an experience with a union, and that "the place
wasn't situated for a union." Van Delft testified
that he handed Livesey the signed cards which he
had in his possession and told him that employee
Costa was also a member of the Union. Van Delft
stated that Livesey thumbed through the cards
mumbling the names as he read each one. Van
Delft also testified that he told Livesey that Hicks
was the shop representative for the Union and he
cautioned Livesey not to interfere or coerce any of
the employees and to maintain the status quo. Van
Delft recalls that Livesey replied that the Union
couldn't tell him how to run his business. The meet-
ing ended with Livesey agreeing to contact his
lawyer.
Livesey's version of the meeting differed in cer-
tain material respects. Livesey stated that Van Delft
claimed to 'represent production employees
described as the "people in the back." Livesey
stated that he did not make such a distinction
between the employees as the Respondent's opera-
tion was small and all employees performed similar
duties. Livesey testified that Van Delft held up
some cards but did not give them to him for inspec-
tion. He also testified that there was no mention of
the names of the employees who signed the -cards.
On cross-examination, however, Livesey changed
this testimony somewhat to state that Van Delft
"might have mentioned" the names of employees,
but he emphatically denied that Hicks was men-
tioned as the shop representative. Livesey agreed to
contact the Union after he got in touch with his at-
torney.
After the meeting Van Delft contacted Livesey
on several occasions by telephone to determine if
he had discussed the matter with his attorney. Dur-
ing these conversations Van Delft again cautioned
Livesey to maintain the status quo, and Livesey
continued to insist that he had the right to run his
business as he thought best. Several days after June
14, the Union filed a representation petition.
B. The Unit Question
The Union contends that the Respondent's work
is divided between office clerical employees and
production employees. The Respondent maintains
that no such distinction exists and that all em-
ployees, regardless of their location in the premises,
perform similar and often times overlapping duties.
A diagram of the Respondent's premises is in
evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 2. Because it
is relevant to the unit question, a copy of this ex-
hibit is attached hereto as Appendix A [omitted
from publication].
The Respondent's premises are basically divided
into two major working areas. The office area
which contains a number of standard office desks
occupied by six female employees ' and a recep-
tionist . This section is separated from the reception
room by a wall containing a sliding glass panel in
front of the receptionist . All of the office em-
ployees are under the immediate supervision of
Gertrude Siefert , the Respondent 's executive secre-
tary, and the overall supervision of the Respon-
dent's president , A. S. Livesey. Leading from the
office area is an enclosed office occupied by A. S.
Livesey.
The other major working area is beyond a wall at
the rear of the office area, and is referred to as the
mailroom . There are two doors leading from the of-
fice to the mailroom . This area contains the
shipping and receiving section, the multilith press,
addressograph and graphotype machines,
suspended storage shelves containing stock, printed
material and records , and files. At, one end of the
mailroom there is a 5 -foot petition topped by a 3-
foot glass panel , behind which two desks are
located . One desk is that of Frank Corless, the
Respondent 's purchasing - agent and supervisor in
charge of the mailroom activities . The other desk is
occupied by Caroline Leto, a part-time employee
who acts as secretary to Corless . Behind the desks
are two enclosed offices; one is the office of R. E.
Livesey and the other is - used as the editorial
production room.
The duties in the mailroom area were performed
by four male and five female employees . On June
14 these employees were:
James Hicks: This employee was the printer at
the Respondent 's establishment . He ran the mul-
tilith offset press, the papercutter , the paper folder,
and a speedomat addressograph machine. Hicks
was the only employee performing these duties.
Leo Huff: Huff was the shipping and receiving
clerk. Huff was also responsible for taking the
physical inventory of the stock . In addition to these
duties Huff on occasion operated the Pitney-Bowes
metering machine and assisted in heat -sealing
recordings which were a part of the language
courses.
Joseph B . Dawson: Dawson - was a regular part-
time employee who assisted Huff in all of his duties.
Witty H. Lloyds: This individual was the Re-
spondent 's mail clerk and regularly operated the
metering machine.
Percides "Pat" Vila: This employee operated the
graphotype and addressograph machines . Her du-
ties included cutting metal stencils from purchase
orders received from the office section and making
changes on existing stencils. Vila filed stencils and
removed outdated cards and records from the files.
In addition , she also followed up on inquiries con-
cerning orders. On occasion she was required to
type purchase orders for Corless, however, this
work was normally performed by Corless' secreta-
ry, Leto.
' These employees are Greazvnsk,, Guzman, Morse, Riese, Santander,
and Daly
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bernadine Plihcik: Plihcik also operated the
graphotype and -the addressograph machines. In ad-
dition, she was responsible for assisting Vila in fil-
ing stencils and keeping the daily count of the
responses to advertising inquiries. When Vila and
Plihcik were not operating the machines, they nor-
mally worked on flat table top surfaces as con-
trasted to the desks which were located in the of-
fice area.
Angelita Costa: Costa's duties were similar to
those of Plihcik and Vila. In addition to operating
the machines, Costa also worked on installment ac-
counts. This consisted of making a stencil and
printing the name of the customer on a ledger card
and statement. These items were then turned over
to the office employees who made the necessary
entries thereon. Costa also assisted in inserting
material for mailing and helped to collate courses
by putting together books and records and tapes.
On a few occasions, Costa had been used to moni-
tor and edit master tapes and audition records.
Genevieve Evans: Evans inserted material into
envelopes for mailing and assisted in assembling
and heat-sealing records used in the courses. She
also operated the addressograph machines and filed
stencils , and collated exercise books and courses. In
addition to these duties, Evans sorted the morning
mail.
Caroline Leto: Leto occupied a standard office
desk next to Frank Corless. She typed purchase or-
ders, took dictation from Corless, sent out form let-
ters, and in general worked as Corless' secretary.
R. E. Livesey and Corless testified at length con-
cerning the duties of the employees in order to
show that all of the employees performed related
work and similar duties, and that there was no
distinction between the employees in the office
area and the employees in the mailroom. To further
support this contention, the Respondent placed in
evidence the transcript of the hearing in the
representation proceeding and several documents
setting forth the various functions of the employees
in the mail fulfillment operation (Resp. Exhs. 4 and
5). Livesey, who professed to have an intimate
knowledge of the Respondent's operation, testified
in a very positive fashion as to the accuracy of the
list of duties set forth in Respondent's Exhibit 5,
and endeavored to show that office employees and
mailroom employees performed the same jobs. On
cross-examination , however, Livesey admitted that
some of the employees listed on that document did
not perform the duties indicated thereon and that
other employees, who should have been listed as
performing certain functions, were omitted. When
pressed for more detail on the daily duties of the
employees4 Livesey disclaimed knowledge of these
matters and stated that Corless, who compiled the
list, had this .information. L_ivesey's testimony con-
cerning the duties of the employees also varied
from the job titles contained on the Respondent's
payroll records. When questioned about this fact,
Livesey stated that the payroll-records were inaccu-
rate in this respect.'
Corless testified in much the same vein as
Livesey concerning the similarity of duties of all of
the employees. Corless admitted, however, that the
employees in the mailroom performed different
functions than the employees in the office. For ex-
ample, the Respondent's Exhibit 5 indicates that
employees Daly, Costa, and Evans work on install-
ment payments. Corless' testimony indicates that
Costa and Evans merely make the stencils and ad-
dress the ledger cards and statements, and that this
material is given to Daly who records the payments
and charges on the cards and types the information
on the statements. Again, the Respondent's Exhibit
5 shows that employees Daly and Dawson,process
returned merchandise. Subsequent testimony
establishes, however, that the material is given to
Daly, who turns it over to Dawson for inspection
and itemization in the shipping section. After the
inspection, Dawson's findings are reported to Daly,
who then makes a claim with the Post Office or
makes the appropriate notation on the customer's
account.
I do not credit the testimony of Livesey or Cor-
less concerning the performance of similar duties
by the employees. Their willingness to testify in
support of a document of questionable value and
the vacillation of Livesey's testimony in particular
cause me to conclude that these individuals were
not being forthright or candid in their testimony.
Nor do I attach any probative value to Respon-
dent's Exhibit 5, which admittedly contains a
number of discrepencies.
It is evident from this record that all employees
were working toward the same goal , i.e., the ulti-
mate fulfillment of mail orders for the-Respondent's
language courses. It is equally evident, however,
that there was a distinct division of duties among
the employees, depending upon whether they
worked in the mailroom or in the office area. The
office and mailroom employees worked under
separate supervision and there was no interchange
between the two groups. With - the exception of
Greazynski, the office employees received a higher
hourly rate of pay.' Mailroom employees were not
required to handle customer inquiries or to have in-
person customer contact. Consequently,- these em-
ployees worked from 8:30 a.m. to, 5:30 p.m., with a
45-minute lunch period beginning at 12:30 p.m. Of-
fice employees, on the other hand, worked from 9
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and staggered their lunch hours in
order to be available for customer inquiries. In ad-
'The timecards also made a distinction between office and mailroom
employees The office employees' cards were marked with the letter "0,"
and the mailroom employees were marked with the letter " M." According
to Livesey, this was merely for the convenience of the bookkeeper.
' Hicks, of course, because of his skill as a pressman , was paid more per
hour than all of the other employees in the mailroom or the office section
R. D. CORTINA CO., INC.
dition, office employees were required to dress in a
more stylish manner because of their contact with
the public. Moreover, the Respondent's payroll
records show that the office employees were pot
docked for lateness, but that the mailroom em-
ployees were penalized .01 percent of an hour's
wages for every 6 minutes that they were late.
For the above reasons, I find that although a unit
of office and mailroom employees might be con-
sidered appropriate, it is not the only appropriate
unit and does not preclude a finding that the unit
requested by the Union is appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. The fact that there is some
overlapping of duties, among the employees in the
office and the mailroom, such as filing, is not suffi-
cient to cancel out the strong community of interest
and the homogeneity of the mailroom employees.
Having determined that the mailroom employees
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargain-
ing, it becomes necessary to decide the unit place-
ment of certain employees:
Nora Greazynski: This employee sits at a desk in
the office area. She is a part-time employee who
maintains records concerning changes of address,
payments, sales statistics, and the like. This infor-
mation is placed on-3 by 5 cards which are filed
both in the office area and in the mailroom. In the
course of her work Greazynski has occasion to go
to the files located in the mailroom to check,
remove, or change certain records. On June 14,
Greazynski was the only employee in the office
area who earned less than $2 per hour; she received
$1.75 per hour.
Despite the fact that Greazynski's work required
her to go into the mailroom to use the files on occa-
sion, I find that her functions were more closely al-
lied to the clerical work of the office employees.
She not only had a strong community of interests
with these employees, but she was also under the
same, supervision. Accordingly, I find that Greazyn-
ski is excluded from the unit of mailroom em-
ployees.
Odie Rodgers'0: Rodgers was a part-time main-
tenance man. He was responsible for cleaning up
the entire premises. He earned $1.75 per hour. In
my judgment, Rodgers' interests were aligned with
the interests of the mailroom employees and for
that reason he is included in the bargaining unit.
Caroline Leto: This employee worked part time,
performing secretarial duties for Corless. Her desk
was next to the desk of Corless behind the partition
in the mailroom area. Leto typed purchase orders,
correspondence, memos, and handled general
secretarial work for Corless. She did not operate
" At the time of the Union's demand for recognition , no claim was made
to represent Rodgers. However, at the representation hearing and in this
proceeding, the Union sought to include him in the unit
" At the time of the Union's demand all of the employees, except Hicks,
were paid every 2 weeks Hicks had a private arrangement with the
1289
any of the machines in the mailroom nor did she in-
terchange with or perform any of the duties of the
other employees in the mailroom. Leto earned
$2.15 per hour, and, as in the case of other office
employees, she was not penalized for lateness.
Leto's• community of interest is decidedly dif-
ferent from the other employees in the mailroom
even though she was responsible to the same super-
visor. Her duties and rate of pay were comparable
to those of the office employees. For this reason, I
find that Leto should be excluded from the unit of
mailroom employees.
Ruth Berland: There is a dispute concerning
whether this employee was terminated or on a leave
of absence at the time of the Union's demand. The
Respondent contends that it was Berland's practice
to take a leave of absence during the slack season
in the summer months. Corless testified that in
April 1966 Berland asked to have her employment
record indicate that she had been terminated and
he so instructed the bookkeeper, Because the
Respondent's witnesses have consistently attempted
to disavow or explain away statements contained on
the Respondent's own personnel records, I find it
difficult to accept this explanation. Consequently I
must rely upon the records themselves. Moreover,
examination of the Respondent's records discloses
that when another employee (Harry Jules) took a
leave of absence, a notation to this effect was en-
tered on his personnel record. Accordingly, I find
that Berland was terminated on April 11, 1966, and
was rehired by the Respondent on September 7,
1966. Therefore, I find that Berland was not an em-
ployee at the time of the Union's demand.
On the basis of the above, I find that on June 14
there were nine employees in the mailroom unit.
These employees were: Vila, Costa, Plihcik, Evans,
Hicks, Huff, Dawson, Lloyds, and Rodgers.
C. The Alleged Interrogation , Promises and
Granting of Benefits
Hicks testified that the day after the Union made
its demand , Corless approached him and stated that
the employees "couldn 't win " with a union, and
that Hicks was "sticking his neck out." Corless
asked Hicks what were the employees ' specific
gripes. Hicks testified that he told Corless that the
employees wanted more money and that they
wanted to be paid every week .' 1 According to
Hicks, Corless replied that the employees would
probably get an increase in pay but that Hicks
would not because he never came to work on
time. 12
Respondent whereby he received an advance on his salary during the
weeks that he was not scheduled to receive a paycheck
32 The above conversation between Hicks and Corless was not denied by
Corless although he testified in this proceeding as one of the Respondent's
chief witnesses
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Vila testified that sometime after she
signed a card for the Union, she was called into A.
S. Livesey's office. Livesey wanted to know why
she had signed a card and why she had not spoken
to him about the employees' problems. According
to Vila, Livesey stated that the Respondent could
not give the mailroom employees a raise until the
union matter was settled but that the employees
would get them at Christmas, in any event.
Huff testified that on the day that the Union
made its demand, Corless came into the shipping
department and asked him "what was the business
about the Union?" According to Huff, Corless
stated that the Respondent would not let a union in
the shop. When Corless asked Huff what the em-
ployees' grievances were, Huff replied that the em-
ployees wanted to be paid weekly, they wanted to
work fewer hours, they wanted better working con-
ditions, and they wanted union representation.
Several days after the Union's demand, A. S.
Livesey called Huff into his office and told him that
the Union was a farce and that the Respondent of-
fered the employees more security. Huff stated that
Livesey asked him to speak to the employees who
had signed union cards and to make an effort to
persuade them to drop the Union. Huff stated that
he spoke to the employees and returned to Livesey
informing him that the employees refused his
request. Huff testified that during the subsequent
weeks Livesey continued to call him into his office
and ask if the employees had changed their minds
about the Union.
Huff further testified that several weeks after the
Union's demand, Corless came up to him and asked
if a $10-a-week raise would keep him out of the
Union.
On July 1, the Respondent discontinued its prac-
tice of paying the employees every 2 weeks and
began paying them weekly. Corless testified that he
convinced the Liveseys to make this change
because it was a point of grievance with the em-
ployees. Corless stated that the employees were
continually seeking to make loans from petty cash
during the weeks that they were not scheduled to
receive a paycheck and it placed a burden on the
bookkeeper.
R. E. Livesey testified that the Respondent made
it a practice to give employees a week's salary as a
iJ The increases were limited to employees working in the mailroom
Although the record shows that several of the office employees were given
wage increases after the Union's demand but prior to December, Livesey
disclaimed any responsibility for this He testified that he and Corless
determined the salaries of employees in the mailroom and A S Livesey
determined the salaries of the office employees
" The pay increases given these employees in 1965 and 1966 were as fol-
lows
1966 1965
Costa $3.50 $2.50
bonus at Christmastime, and, in addition, that the
Respondent generally granted raises to employees
in June and December. Livesey stated that because
of the pending matter with the Union and because
the employees were becoming "restless" over the
matter of wages, he contacted the Board agent han-
dling the cases in the Regional Office and sought
his advice. Livesey testified that he was advised not
to treat the employees any differently than he had
prior to the advent of the Union. Livesey stated
that as a result of this information, a decision was
made in December 1966, to grant pay increases to
the mailroom employees. The increases became ef-
fective January 1, 1967.13
On January 1, 1967, the mailroom employees
received raises in the following amounts: Costa, $4
per week; Vila, $4 per week; Plihcik, $8 per week;
Evans, $8 per week; and Berland, $2 per week for a
20-hour week.14
D. The Discharge of Hicks
James Hicks was hired as a printer by the
Respondent in 1965. By his own admission, Hicks
rarely, if ever, reported to work -on time. The
record indicates that Hicks was generally an hour
late each morning15 Hicks' failure to report to work
on time was a matter of great concern to the
Respondent. On October 14, 1965, Corless
directed a memorandum to both of the Liveseys
suggesting that the work in the printing department
be contracted out rather than replacing the printer
(Hicks), who was described therein as being
unqualified. The memo went on to state that Hicks
was "incorrigible along the lines of punctuality,"
and that Corless had tried every means possible to
get him to come in on time . In December 1965, the
Respondent attempted to hire a replacement for
Hicks, but this effort proved -unsuccessful as the
replacement could not perform the work. Corless
testified that Hicks' lack of punctuality presented
such a problem that he offered to change Hicks'
hours in order to accomodate him. This arrange-
ment likewise failed. Hicks acknowledged that Cor-
less constantly approached him on the subject of
punctuality and that he often left notes on Hicks'
machine concerning his failure to report to work on
time.
1966 1965
Vila (Not employed due 2.00
to pregnancy.)
Plihcik 2.00 (Not employed
until June
1965)
Evans 2 .00 2.50
15 When questioned on this point, Hicks stated, "I made an attempt to
come in to do my work but I didn't make no rush. I didn't leave my house
like it was on fire to get to work "
R. D. CORTINA CO., INC. 1291
Corless testified that this matter came to a head
on June 10, when Hicks reported to work at 11
a.m. Corless indicated that he was furious and
would have fired Hicks on the spot, but for the fact
that he was not certain whether some special
material being printed for R. E. Livesey's class re-
union had been completed.16 Corless further testi-
fied that because of his anger with Hicks, he sent a
handwritten note to the bookkeeper stating that if
Hicks came in late on Wednesday (June 15), the
Respondent would have little choice but to fire
him. The note directed the bookkeeper to draw two
checks for Hicks to be given to him on Friday
(June 17).
On June 14, according to Corless, Hicks was
wandering around the shop away from his machines
talking with other employees and he (Coxless)
became furious and ordered him back to his depart-
ment . Corless stated that Hicks knew at this point
that he was "canned" because of the manner in
which he was ordered back to work. Corless did not
fire Hicks at this time however, because it was his
policy not to fire employees "on the spot," but to
wait until the end of the workweek." Corless
testified that he consulted with R. E. Livesey con-
cerning Hicks during the week of June 13, and was
informed that no further material had to be
produced for the Princeton reunion, and that he
should use his own judgment concerning Hicks. On
June 17, he discharged Hicks at the end of the day,
and attempted to give him the two paychecks."'
Hicks refused to accept them and, according to
Corless, accused the Respondent of engaging in a
plot against him because of his union activities.
Hicks testified that Corless stressed the fact that
R. E. Livesey had nothing to do with the matter,
and that he was being discharged because of his re-
peated €ailure to come to- work on time. Corless
pointed out that Hicks continued to report to work
late in spite of the posted notice making continuous
lateness a cause for dismissal."9
The following Monday, June 20, Hicks appeared
at Respondent's premises accompanied by Van
Delft and Cavanaugh of the Union. Van Delft at-
tempted to 'persuade Corless to rehire Hicks but his
suggestion was rejected. Hicks, Cavanaugh, and
Van Delft 'then waited outside the Respondent's
premises to speak with R. E. Livesey. When
Livesey approached, Van Delft stopped him and
proceeded to discuss the matter of reinstating
Hicks. Livesey told Van Delft that the quality of
Hicks' work was poor and that Hicks failed to keep
the area around the machines clean and that he was
repeatedly late' for work. Livesey refused to rein-
state Hicks.
E. The Discharge of Leo Huff
Huff was first employed by the Respondent in
1962. In December 1964, Huff left the Respond-
ent's employment for personal reasons. In March
1966 , Corless contacted Huff and rehired him as
the Respondent 's shipping clerk . According to
Huff, after the Union 's demand for recognition he
was given extra duties to perform . Huff stated that
he was required to clean light fixtures and empty
trash drums , and to perform other menial jobs. Huff
testified that this work had not been a part of his
duties in the past . Huff also testified that Corless
began to constantly criticize the performance of his
work , and was especially critical of mistakes in the
inventory figures. Huff stated that , prior to the ad-
vent of the Union , inaccuracies in the inventory
figures were not criticized.
In August , Huff and the other male employees
began to become concerned over the failure of the
Union's demand to bring results. Huff called the
union headquarters and made an appointment to
see Van Delft. He, Lloyds, and Dawson decided to
go to the union headquarters on August 15, instead
of reporting to work . Lloyds and Dawson did not
show up at the union headquarters , and Huff waited
until noon to see Van Delft . Huff never saw Van
Delft because of an apparent mixup on the arrange-
ments, and he returned home. Huff admitted that
he did not call in or notify the Respondent that he
would be absent from work . When Huff reported to
work the following day he was discharged by Cor-
less for failing to call in concerning his absence.
Corless testified that he had been on vacation im-
mediately prior to August 15, and when he
returned to work that day no one was available to
handle the shipments . He stated that Huff had
failed to come to work on a few occasions in the
past , but had always called in by noon . Because he
received no word from any of the absent em-
ployees, Corless pulled their timecards and told the
bookkeeper that they were fired. The following
morning Huff, Lloyds, and Dawson appeared at
work and were told by Corless that they were fired
for failing to call in .20 According to Corless , the em-
ployees appeared to have engaged in a "personal
strike for action," and he was not aware of their ap-
pointment at the union headquarters.
Concluding Findings
As noted previously, the testimony in this case
presents a number of conflicts, both on the basic is-
sues and on matters of lesser importance. Because
of the manner in which certain key witnesses for
i0 R E Livesey was an alumnus of Princeton University, and he was
using his facilities to print and mail out material in connection with a class
reunion
The timecards show that Hicks reported to work at 10 55 a in on June
13, 10 26 a in on June 14; 9 13 a in on June 15, and 9 04 a in on June
16.
18 The Respondent's pay period ended on Thursday Thus it was necessa-
ry to issue a separate check to Hicks for Friday's work
"Although Hicks and Huff testified that the notice setting forth the shop
rules on lateness and absence was not posted until after the Union's de-
mand, the credited evidence discloses that the notice had been posted
above the timeclock for at least 2 years
20 Corless also testified that Huff's work had become poor and that he
had been drinking on the job and had frequent arguments with the female
employees
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the General Counsel and the Respondent testified,
the task of recapitulating the true state of facts is
extremely difficult. Comfort can be taken, however,
in the words of Judge Learned Hand in the Univer-
sal Camera case wherein he stated: " It is no reason
for refusing to accept everything that a witness
says, because you do not believe all of it; nothing is
more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than
to believe some and not all."" In my judgment,
these words are especially appropriate here.
It is undisputed that certain employees signed
cards for the Union and that on June 14, represen-
tatives of the Union met with R. E. Livesey. In
determining how and where they met and what was
said, I am convinced that the accurate account of
the meeting is not contained in the testimony of
Livesey or Hicks. Livesey, whom I discredit
generally, did not impress me as a reliable witness.
His demeanor while testifying left much to be
desired. He had a penchant for volunteering self-
serving statements unsolicited by a question.
Livesey made very positive assertions concerning
his intimate knowledge of the Respondent's opera-
tions and the duties of all of the employees, but on
cross-examination he became very evasive concern-
ing these same matters. In addition his repeated at-
tempts to discount or explain away matters con-
tained in the Respondent's own records compel the
conclusion that little if any credence can be given
to most of his testimony.
Hicks likewise left an unfavorable impression as a
witness. After observing this witness while testify-
ing, I am, persuaded that he deliberately enlarged
upon certain events in order to present his cause in
a more favorable light. Consequently, there are
portions of Hicks' testimony which I reject and por-
tions which I credit. N.L.R.B. v. United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 517,
AFL (Gil Wyner Construction Co.), 230 F.2d 256,
259 (C.A. 1); Universal Metal Finishing, 156
NLRB 138, 139.
Van Delft testified in a convincing and
straightforward manner and I am persuaded that his
statements are the most accurate. Even in the case
of this witness, however, there is testimony con-
cerning a minor occurrence-leaving the reception
area and going into Livesey's office-which seems
to fly in the face of credited testimony to the con-
trary. Nevertheless, the variance in this aspect of
Van Delft's testimony does not cause me to disbe-
lieve the balance of his testimony.
Accordingly, I find that on June 14, Hicks in-
troduced the union representatives to Livesey in
front of the Respondent's premises, and that the de-
mand for recognition and bargaining was made sub-
sequently in the reception area-outside of Hick's
11 N L R B. v Universal Camera Corporation , 179 F 2d 749,754 (C A
2).
11 Hicks ' testimony concerning his conversation with Carless is unrefuted
in the record
presence. I further find that Livesey inspected the
signed cards and was told that Costa was already a
member of the Union and that Hicks was the shop
representative. I credit Van Delft's statement that
Livesey said he did not want a union in the shop
and that his business was unsuited for a union. I
further find that at no time during this conversation
did Livesey claim that there was no distinction
between the office and, mailroom employees
because they performed the same duties.
On the basis of the above, I find and conclude
that the Union had been designated by a majority
of the mailroom employees as their collective-bar-
gaining representative and that on June 14, the
union representatives demanded recognition and
bargaining from the Respondent. I further find that
the Respondent expressed no doubts at the time of
the demand as to the Union's representative capaci-
ty or as to the appropriateness of the unit requested
by the Union, but agreed to contact his attorney be-
fore acting upon the Union's request.
The record clearly shows that the Respondent's
officials began interrogating employees concerning
the Union almost immediately after the demand
was made. Corless asked Hicks what his specific
gripes were and why he was "sticking his neck out"
for the Union. When informed that the employees
wanted to be paid weekly and wanted more money,
Corless indicated that the employees would
probably get a raise but that Hicks would not as he
never reported to work on time.22 Corless also
questioned Huff concerning employee grievances,
and on one occasion asked him if a $10-a-week
raise would be sufficient to keep him out of the
Union.23 A. S. Livesey also spoke to Huff concern-
ing the reasons why the employees would want a
union. During this conversation Livesey told Huff
that the Respondent would close down before it
would allow a union to come in,24 and asked Huff
to attempt to persuade the employees to withdraw
from the Union. A. S. Livesey also questioned em-
ployee Vila concerning employee grievances, and
promised pay raises when the union matter was set-
tled, or at Christmas in any event. The record
shows that after ascertaining that the biweekly pay
period was a major source of complaint among the
employees, the Respondent began paying the em-
ployees weekly on July 1.,
I find that the record clearly supports the conclu-
sion that the interrogation of the employees by A.
S. Livesey and Corless was for the express purpose
of interfering with and restraining the, employees in
the exercise of their right to be represented by the
Union. Grand-Central Chrysler, Inc., 155 NLRB
185, 186; Heinrich Motors, Inc., 153 NLRB 1575,
1576. Further, that the change in pay periods, in
zs The above is also undisputed in the record.
24 1 do not credit A S, Livesey's denial of the statement that he would
close down before allowing a union to come in. The balance of Huff's
testimony concerning his conversation with A. S. Livesey is undenied.
R. D. CORTINA CO., INC. 1293
order to eliminate a major employee complaint,
was for the purpose of undermining employee sup-
port of the Union. Such conduct violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Albuquerque
Phoenix Express, 368 F.2d 451 (C.A. 10).
The Respondent's opposition to the unionization
of its employees also manifested itself in the treat-
ment of the employees who were considered to be
the chief union adherents. The first of these was
Hicks. Without a doubt Hicks left much to be
desired as an employee. He seldom, if ever, re-
ported to work at the regularly scheduled time,
even though he constantly received oral and written
warnings from Corless. Indeed, in December 1965,
the Respondent sought unsuccessfully to find a
replacement for Hicks. Although Hicks gave the
Respondent ample cause to discharge him,25 almost
from the very inception of his employment, it is sig-
nificant to note that the Respondent did not deem
it necessary to do so until 3 days after the Union's
demand, and after the Respondent learned of
Hicks' role in organizing the employees. The mere
fact that a cause for discharge exists, however, is no
defense if an employer was motivated partly by a
desire to rid himself of an employee because of
union activities. N.L.R.B. v. Great Eastern Color
Lithographic Corp., 309 F.2d 352, 355 (C.A. 2).
On the basis of the evidence in this case, I find
that the discharge of Hicks was in part motivated
by a desire of the Respondent to rid itself of the in-
dividual who was responsible for bringing in the
Union. The Respondent condoned Hicks' conduct
for more than a year, and did not take action
against him until after his union activities became
known. In addition, there are documents in
evidence which cast serious doubts upon the
Respondent's claim that Hicks was discharged for
cause. Corless testified that because Hicks was later
than usual on Friday (June 10), he directed a note
to the bookkeeper informing her that if Hicks were
late on Wednesday of the following week, he was to
be fired and that she should prepare two checks for
him. There is no convincing testimony as to the
reason why Corless selected Wednesday of the fol-
lowing week when it was almost certain that Hicks
would, also be late on the preceding Monday and
Tuesday. Furthermore, examination of the docu-
ment discloses that the date affixed thereto con-
tains an erasure, and that the original date appears
to be June 14; the day of the Union's demand.
Similarly, R. E. Livesey testified that Hicks failed to
keep the pressroom clean, and that he had directed
a note concerning this matter to Corless on June 7.
When cross-examined concerning this document,
Livesey acknowledged that he may have placed the
date on this document within the 30 days preceding
the trial of this case.
In these circumstances, I am persuaded that
Hicks was discharged partly for cause and partly
because of his activities on behalf of the Union. It
follows, therefore, that such a discharge is dis-
criminatory and tends to discourage membership in
the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Associated Naval Architects,
Inc., 355 F.2d 788, 792 (C.A. 4); Great Eastern
Color Lithographic Corp., supra; Maryland Specialty
Wire, Inc., 163 NLRB 916.
The discharge of Huff presents a somewhat
closer situation in my judgment. The record dis-
closes that Huff was considered to be a loyal and
satisfactory employee until the Union began or-
ganizing the mailroom employees. After the
Union's demand Huff was unlawfully interrogated
by A. S. Livesey and Corless, and each of these in-
dividuals attempted to cause Huff to abandon the
Union and to cause other employees to do likewise.
Because of the delay in getting the Respondent to
bargain with the Union and because he felt that the
Respondent was unnecessarily harassing and impos-
ing additional duties upon him,26 Huff, along with
Lloyds and Dawson, decided to stay off from work
on August 15, and present his complaints to the
Union. None of these employees called the shop to
advise the Respondent that they would be absent
from work. All three were discharged when they re-
ported to work the following day because they had
failed to call in and advise the Respondent of their
intended absence.
There is no doubt on this record that Huff -vio-
lated the Respondent's shop rules against failing to
notify his supervisor when he was going to be ab-
sent from the job, and that failure was cause for
discharge. In the circumstances of this case, how-
ever, I am convinced that Huff's strong stand on be-
half of the Union was also a motivating factor in his
discharge. This employee had resisted the efforts of
A. S. Livesey and Corless to persuade him to aban-
don the Union and to cause other employees to do
the same. He also became subjected to petty
harassment by Corless because of his support of the
Union. Moreover, while the reason advanced for
Huff's discharge was his failure to call in on August
15, Corless went to considerable lengths to
establish that Huff had now became an undesirable
employee who drank on the job and quarreled with
his coworkers. Weighing all of these factors against
the Respondent's unquestioned right to discharge
an employee for good or bad reasons, I am not con-
vinced that Huff was discharged solely because he
violated the rule about calling in when absent.
2' In addition to discharging Hicks for chronic lateness , the Respondent
put on evidence to show that Hicks was also insubordinate and that he
failed to clean up his work area.
zs The complaint alleges that Huff was required to perform more arduous
and less agreeable tasks because of his activities on behalf of the Union. I
do not find that the evidence supports this view. Huff was required to
empty the trash drums because the maintenance man was on vacation and
the other tasks that he complained of were duties which were required of
all the male employees prior to the advent of the Union I do find, however,
that after the Union 's demand Corless began to criticize the performance
of Huff's work
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rather I find, as in the case of Hicks, that Huff's
discharge was in part motivated by a desire of the
Respondent to rid itself of a strong union adherent.
I find this conduct to be a 'violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Great Eastern Corp.,
supra; N.L.R.B. v. Associated Naval Architects, Inc.,
supra.
I find and conclude that the Respondent's failure
to bargain with the Union as the majority represent-
ative of its mailroom employees and the Respond-
ent's entire course of conduct following the
Union's demand demonstrate a complete rejection
of the collective-bargaining principle and compel
the conclusion that the Respondent engaged in this
unlawful conduct in order to gain time to un-
dermine the Union's majority status. Such conduct
violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Joy Silk
Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, enfd. 185 F.2d 732
-(C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914.
It follows from the above that by changing the
pay period from biweekly to weekly in July and by
granting employees pay increases27 at a time when
the Union was entitled to exclusive recognition as
the bargaining representative of the employees, the
Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 744;
N.L.R.B. v. Elliott-Williams Co., Inc., 345 F.2d 460
(C.A. 7).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All mailroom and maintenance employees
employed by the Respondent excluding office cleri-
cals, editorial staff employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
4. By interrogating employees concerning their
union sympathies and desires, the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By informing employees that the Respondent
would close its shop before allowing a union to
represent the employees and by asking employees
to persuade other employees to abandon the Union,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
6. By discharging employees James Hicks and
Leo Huff for the reason that they engaged in activi-
ties on behalf of the Union and in order to
discourage membership in the Union, the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. By changing its pay period from biweekly to
weekly and by granting employees wage increases
for the purposes of encouraging said employees to
discourage membership in the Union, the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
8. By failing and refusing on June 14, 1966, and
at all times thereafter, to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the aforesaid
unit and by changing the employees' pay period
and by granting employees wage increases without
notice to or consultation with the Union, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend
the issuance of an order that it cease and desist
therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
found herein, which in my judgment go to the very
heart of the Act, I shall further recommend that the
Respondent be required from infringing in any
manner upon the exercise of the employee rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4);_Califor-
nia Lingerie, Inc., 129 NLRB 912, 915.
Having also found that the Respondent has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative designated
by a majority of the employees in the unit found ap-
propriate, I shall recommend further that the
Respondent cease and desist from refusing to bar-
gain and that upon request the Respondent bargain
in good faith with the Union as such representative
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
Having further found that the Respondent unlaw-
fully discharged James Hicks and Leo Huff, I shall
recommend that it offer these employees im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority, or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them in a
manner consistent with the Board policy set forth in
2' Although the Respondent urges that the pay increases were granted
only after a conversation with a Board agent in the Regional Office, I find
that this is not a defense to a violation of the statutory duty to bargain In-
deed, on the basis of my analysis of Livesey's testimony throughout this
proceeding, I am not persuaded that this was the information actually
given
R. D CORTINA CO., INC.
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with in-
terest at 6 percent per annum as prescribed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Accordingly, upon- the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record
in this case, I recommend, pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent , R. D. Cortina Co., Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in District 65,
Retail , Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against employees with regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment , except as authorized by the proviso in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Interrogating employees about their union
sentiments and desires in a manner constituting in-
terference , restraint , or coercion within the mean-
ing of the Act.
(c) Seeking to get employees to withdraw their
support of the Union by offering employees an in-
crease in their wages, and informing employees that
the Respondent will close down before allowing the
Union to become the collective -bargaining
representative of the employees.
(d) Refusing to recognize and bargain collective-
ly in good faith with the above -named Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees concern-
ing wages , rates of pay, hours , and other terms and
conditions of employment in the following ap-
propriate unit:
All mailroom and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the Respondent excluding office cleri-
cals, editorial staff employees , guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(e) Changing employees' pay periods and grant-
ing employees wage increases without notifying or
consulting the above -named Union as the exclusive
collective -bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the above -stated unit.
(f) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I
find will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to James Hicks and Leo Huff im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by them and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered by reason of their discriminatory
discharges in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request , bargain collectively with the
1295
above-named Union as the exclusive representative
of all of its employees in the unit found appropriate
herein and embody in a written signed agreement
all understandings reached.
(c) Post at its New York City establishment co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B. "28
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 2, after being duly
signed by the official representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.29
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allega-
tions of the complaint alleging conduct to be un-
lawful which has not been found specifically to be
unlawful herein be dismissed.
29 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 Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
29 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 "
APPENDIX B
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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or
activities on behalf of District 65, Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of
our employees by discharging or otherwise dis-
criminating in regard to hire and tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employ-
ment of our employees, except to the extent
that membership in a labor organization is
required as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
with the above-named Union as the exclusive
representative of all our employees in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees by interrogating them
concerning the reasons why they support the
above-named Union, or by promising them
benefits and pay increases in order to induce
them to refrain from engaging in activities on
behalf of or support of the above-named
Union.
WE WILL NOT change our employees' pay
periods or change any other term or condition
of employment, or grant our employees wage
increases without first notifying and consulting
with the above-named Union as the exclusive
representative of all of our employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, to form, gain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing,
or to engage in concerted activities for their
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer James Hicks and Leo Huff
immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and, if these individuals
are presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of America, we will notify
them of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Military Training and Ser-
vice Act, as amended, after their discharge
from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL make whole James Hicks and Leo
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Huff for any loss of earnings suffered by reason
of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request,
with District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all our employees
in the appropriate unit described below and, if
an agreement is reached , embody such un-
derstanding in a signed contract . The ap-
propriate unit is:
All mailroom and maintenance employees
excluding office clericals, editorial staff
employees , guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or to refrain from becoming or remaining , members
of the above -named Union or any other labor or-
ganization , except as such rights may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended.
R. D. CORTINA CO., INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745
Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022, Telephone
751-5500.