Royal Plating and Polishing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 8, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 990 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and to
take certain affirmative action designed to dissipate its affect.
Since I have found that NFL has entered into contracts with unlawful referral
clauses with Sun States, United Electric, and Taube it will be recommended that
Respondent cease entering into, maintaining, and enforcing any contract or agree-
ment with those employers that unlawfully conditions hire or tenure of employment
of employees or applicants for employment upon membership in the Respondent.
Upon the basis of all of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire rec-
ord in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The employers named in section I of this Decision are employers within the
meaning of the Act.
2. National Federation of Labor, Inc., Carpenters District Council of Miami,
Florida, and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No. 349, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning
of the Act.
3. By its execution of contracts with Sun State, United Electric, and Taube con-
taining preferential hiring clauses, NFL restrained and coerced employees in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
4. By seeking recognition as the bargaining agent of employees of employers in
the State of Florida, by maintaining agreements with such employers, and by its
existence as a successor of USEA, NFL did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Royal Plating and Polishing Co., Inc. and Metal Polishers,
Buffers , Platers and Helpers International Union , Local 44,
AFL-CIO. Case 2?-CYI-1640. Septent ber 8,1066
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 27, 1964, the National Labor relations Board issued its
Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, concluding, on
the basis of the findings of fact set forth there and in the Trial
Examiner's Decision attached thereto, that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, "by failing to disclose to the Union, while it and the Union
were engaged in contract negotiations, its intention to shut down
operations at its Meeker Street plant, and by unilaterally, and with-
out notice to the Union, closing clown the plant." 1 The Board's Order
required Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor prac-
1148 NLRB 545, 546
160 NLRB No. 72.
ROYAL PLATING AND POLISHING CO. 991
tices found and to take certain affirmative action designed to remedy
the unfair labor practices .2 On April 21, 1965, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit , acting upon a motion of the
Board to remand the case for reconsideration , ordered that the case
be remanded to the Board for the limited purpose of considering
whether, and to what extent , the decision by the Supreme Court of
the United States in N.L.P.B. v. Deering -Milliken, Inc. (Darlington
Mfg. Corp.), 380 U.S. 263 , affected this case.
Subsequently , on May 14, 1965 , the Board issued its Supplemental
Decision and Order Amending Order in which it concluded that the
Supreme Court 's decision in Darlington did not require alteration of
its conclusions concerning Respondent 's bargaining obligation, but
amended its Order by limiting Respondent 's backpay liability to the
date Respondent went out of business by closing down the Sussex
Avenue plant on August 31, 1963, and made the cease -and-desist pro-
vision of its original order applicable only in the event Respondent
resumed operations.3
Thereafter, on the Board 's petition to enforce the amended Order,
the Court of Appeals denied enforcement and remanded the case to
the Board to make further findings and, if necessary , to take addi-
tional evidence in order to determine whether Respondent unlawfully
refused to bargain with respect to the effects of the closing of the
Bleeker Street plant on the employees , notwithstanding the fact that,
in the circumstances of the case , it was under no obligation to bargain
about the decision to close down the plant; ' and whether, considering
all relevant circumstances , the Board should issue a remedial order
if it found such a violation to have been committed.5
On December 14, 1965, the Board, by letters served on all parties
to the case , afforded the parties an opportunity to file briefs on the
issues remanded to the Board . Thereafter, briefs were filed by the
Charging Party and the Respondent.
Pursuant to the court 's remand, the Board has reconsidered its
Supplemental Decision and Order Amending Order . In doing so,
2 Affirmatively, the Board's Order required Respondent to create a preferential hiring
list for use in the event the Respondent voluntarily resumed operations, containing the
names of all employees laid off between April 30 and July 1, 1963, 1 e., the Bleeker Street
plant employees, to bargain with the Union upon request in the event Respondent resumed
operations, and to make Sleeker Street plant employees whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the unfair labor practices by paying to each of them a sum
of money equal to the amount he would have earned as wages from the date of his termina-
tlon of employment on or after April 30, 1963, to the time he secured equivalent employ-
ment elsewhere, but in no event past the date of December 4, 1963, the date Respondent
was required to vacate the Bleeker Street premises under its agreement concerning the
sale of such premises.
3152 NLRB 619
* The court noted that the Board 's finding that Respondent had failed to bargain about
the effects of the closing was, in part, based on its finding that the closing was itself an
unfair labor practice
5 N.L.R.R, v Royal Plating and Polishing Co. Inc, 350 F.2d 191.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and briefs, the supplemental briefs, its earlier Decision and
Supplemental Decision, and the entire record in the case. Based on
the'evidence in the record as a whole 6 and for the reasons hereinafter
set forth, the Board finds that, by withholding information of its
intention to terminate the Bleeker Street plant while engaging in
ostensible collective-bargaining negotiations with the Union, and by
discouraging any attempt by the Union to bargain over the effects
of the closing on employees following its announcement to the Union
on June 14, 1963,° that it had sold the plant, Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act ; and further finds that it is
necessary, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, to issue the
remedial order contained herein.
The entire sequence of events between April 1, when Respondent's
President Barile decided to close the Bleeker Street plant, and
August 31, when the Sussex Avenue plant was sold and Respondent
went out of business, reveals a course of conduct on the part of
Respondent to withhold from the Union its plan to sell the Bleeker
Street plant, even though Respondent's decision was reached prior
to the commencement of collective-bargaining negotiations with the
Union. Without repeating the entire factual context, which is set
forth in detail in the Board's prior decisions in the instant case, the
events concerning the sale of the Bleeker Street plant and Respond-
ent's negotiations with the Union demonstrate clearly the deception
practiced upon the latter. On April 1, Barile reached a definite deci-
sion to close down the Bleeker Street plant. On April 30, the first
bargaining session between Respondent and the Union took place.
Barile admitted that he did not mention to the Union at this meeting
his plan to discontinue the Bleeker Street operation. Nor did Barile
so advise the Union at the second bargaining session on May 7. On
May 14, Barile gave the Housing Authority of the City of Newark
an irrevocable option to purchase the Bleeker Street property and,
later that month, asked the authority to expedite its purchase of the
property. Barile also failed to advise the Union of his plans at either
of the bargaining sessions on May 17 or at the signing, on May 23,
of the new contract, which was to remain in effect until April 18,
1964. Shortly after the signing of the agreement, Respondent began
turning down new work orders and laid off six of the Bleeker Street
employees. When the Union then inquired of Barile if he was going
out of business, lie replied that he was merely "liquidating" and that
° At the outset, the Board finds that the present record is sufficient to consider the issues
remanded by the court and, therefore , does not deem it necessary to adduce additional
evidence
7 All dates are 1963 unless otherwise indicated
ROYAL PLATING AND POLISHING CO. 993
liquidating did not mean going out of business. Similarly, he claimed
that he was only "getting smaller" and "trying out something," and
denied that he was closing down. Thereafter, on June 3, Respondent
conveyed the Bleeper Street property to the authority, received the
purchase price, and obtained the right to remain on the premises
as a tenant for up to 6 months. On June 14, the Union was told for
the first time that the Bleeker Street plant had been sold and that
operations there would be discontinued.,, Subsequently, on or about
June 15, Respondent ceased all operations at Bleeker Street, and, on
July 10, the machinery and equipment of that plant were sold at
public auction.
In his Decision, the Trial Examiner concluded that:
Barile's course of conduct is consistent only with the conclusion
that he acted as he did with a deliberate purpose in mind, and
that his purpose must have been to avoid bargaining with the
Union during the April 30 to May 23 period of negotiations, over
such matters as severance and termination pay, insurance and
pension funds, and like subjects that might be expected to arise
when a business is being closed. Barile's failure to inform the
Union while negotiations were in progress, of his intention to
close the plant, reduced the bargaining which did occur, and the
agreement which resulted therefrom, to no more than an exercise
in frivolity, and constituted bad-faith bargaining.9
We agree with this conclusion of the Trial Examiner,10 and with
the opinion of the court above, that Respondent, "by withholding
information of its intention to terminate the Bleeker Street Opera-
tions, deterred the Union from bargaining over the effect of the shut-
down on the employees." 11 The so-called bargaining which took place
between April 30 and May 23 was in reality no bargaining at all.
The subject of the effects of a closing upon the employees of the plant
was not discussed, for the Union had no knowledge that any closing
was planned. Indeed, Business Agent Scheuermann testified that the
Union did not seek, among other things, a provision for severance
pay in the 1963 negotiations, because "There was no reason [known
to the Union] for it."
8 During cross examination , Bartle admitted that , at the time of these conversations with
the Union concerning the future of the Bleeker Street plant and the employees there, lie
felt that he had no duty or obligation to discuss these matters with the Union. He added
that, "I feel that ix ay today, too."
9 148 NLRB at 556. See also Standard Handae•ahtef Co , Inc , 151 NLRB 15.
10 In our prior Decisions in this case , we accepted these findings of the Trial Examiner
and concluded , as noted by the court , that Respondent was guilty of an unfair labor prac-
tice, based on its unilateral decision to close the Bleeker Street plant and its failure to
bargain about the effects of that closing.
11 350 F.2d at 196.
2 5 7-5 51-6 7-v o f 16 0-6 4"
1
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board and the courts have held on numerous occasions that an
employer violates Section 8 (a) (5) when it conceals from the bargain-
ing representative of its employees its intention with respect to its
future operations.12 In a recent case 13 involving the related issue of
an employer's misrepresentation of the existence of certain job classi-
fications, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the Board's finding of an unlawful refusal to bargain, and,
in a description appropriate to the circumstances present herein,
stated in part:
An employer is not, and may not be, required to yield on posi-
tions fairly maintained, but it may not use those positions as a
"cloak" behind which to conceal a purposeful strategy to give
the union a "runaround while purporting to be meeting with the
union for the purpose of collective bargaining." N.L.R.B. v.
Herman Sausage Co., 275 F.2d 229, 232 (C.A. 5) ; N.L.R.B.
v. Southwestern Porcelain Steel Corp., 317 F.2d 527 (C.A. 10).
On the record before us, we find that Respondent concealed from
the Union during the 1963 bargaining negotiations its intention to
close the Bleeker Street plant, thereby preventing the Union from
bargaining over the effects of such closing on the employees. We
further find that there is nothing in the record concerning events
on and after June 14 which would warrant a different conclusion with
respect to the unlawful nature of Respondent's failure to give the
Union notice of its intention to terminate the Bleeker Street operation
and to afford the Union an opportunity to bargain about the effects
of the termination of operations on employees. First, when Respond-
ent did advise the Union on that date of the sale of the property and
the imminent closing of the plant, the Union was handed what the
Trial Examiner accurately called a fait accompli. Moreover, when
the Union attempted to pursue the matter with Barile at that time,
Barile stated that no one could help him and that there was "nothing
that could be discussed" with respect to the closing.
The Union's attempts, during the 2-week period preceding the
June 14 meeting, to learn from Barile the actual situation at the
12 Standard Handkerchief Co., Inc., supra ; Sidele Fashions , Inc [Philadelphia Dress
Joint Board, Garment Workers '], 133 NLRB 547, 553-554, enfd. 305 F 2d 825 (C A. 3) ;
Quality Coal Corporation, 139 NLRB 492, 494, enfd in pertinent part 319 F 2d 428 (C A
7), enfd. In full sub nom N L.R B. v. International Union, Progressive Mine Workers of
America, 375 U.S 39G; Aluminum Tubular Corporation , 130 NLRB 1306, enfd . In pertinent
part 299 F 2d 595 (C A. 2) ; Rapid Bindery, Inc., 127 NLRB 212, enfd 293 F,2d 170 (C A
2) ; Vac-Art, Inc., 124 NLRB 989, 997-998; Mount Hope Finishing Company, 106 NLRB
480, 496, reversed on other grounds, 211 F 2d 365 (C.A. 4) ; Brown Truck and Trailer
Manufacturing Company, Inc ., 106 NLRB 999 , 1000-02; Eva-Ray Dress Manufacturing
Company, Inc ., 88 NLRB 361 , 362, enfd. 191 F.2d 850 (C.A. 5) ; Howard Rome, d/b/a
Rome Products Company, 77 NLRB 1217, 1220.
13 K L R.B. v. My Store, Inc., 345 F 2d 494, 498 .(C A. 7), enfg. 147 NLRB 145, cert.
denied 382 U S. 927.
i
ROYAL PLATING AND POLISHING CO. 995
Bleeker Street plant, and the latter's evasions of those inquiries,
reveal still further the futility of any additional attempts by the
Union to pursue the matter after that date. As noted above, when
Scheuermann first asked Barile on June 1 about the reasons for
layoffs at the plant, Barile replied that he was merely liquidating
and was not closing down. At the next meeting on this subject, on
June 5, Barile repeated that, "I am not closing down. I am just
liquidating." Scheuermann testified that he found this " a very con-
fusing setup, but that is the answers I got from Mr. Barile." Finally,
when the sale and closing were revealed to the Union on June 14,
Scheuermamz asked Barile why he was laying people off and closing
down. According to Scheuermann, Barile said that "'I can sell my
plant. This is America.' But no definite answers were given to me
outside that remark." Scheuermann added that Barile "did not seem
to be in a discussing mood." And, as previously indicated, Barile
admitted at the hearing that he felt that he had "no duty or obliga-
tion" to discuss the situation with the Union.14
In view of the foregoing, although the Union made no specific
request to bargain about the effects of the closing at the June 14
meeting or thereafter, we find that it sufficiently evidenced its desire
to so bargain and that Barile's conduct effectively foreclosed any such
bargaining. Moreover, it is understandable that the Union would
have concluded that it would have been fruitless for it to continue
to seek such bargaining with Barile; a conclusion we find reasonable
under the circumstances set forth above. Particularly is that so when
the Union had been deprived, by Respondent's course of concealment,
of its effective opportunity for bargaining during the negotiations
completed only 3 weeks earlier, and again during the discussions with
Barile between June 1 and 14.
On the basis of the foregoing, and independent of our previous
finding with respect to the decision to terminate the Bleeker Street
operation, we find that Respondent, by concealing the decision to
terminate operations at that plant until after negotiations had been
completed and agreement had been reached with the Union on future
terms and conditions of employment, until after Respondent had
commenced curtailing its operations and laying off employees, and
until the very day it closed its doors, prevented the Union from
14 Footnote 8, supra. In addition to the admissions of Barile and the credited testimony
of Scheuermann concerning the June 14 discussion, the failure of Respondent to meet
its statutory obligation with respect to bargaining about the effects on employees of the
sale of the Bleeker Street plant is pointed up by contrast with its conduct concerning the
shutdown of the Sussex Avenue plant some 2 months later. Several days prior to the later
shutdown, Respondent addressed a letter to the Union advising it of the closing of the
plant and offering to discuss the same . The record is devoid of any such expression of
willingness on the part of the Respondent concerning the Bleeker Street operation here
in issue.
i
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaging in realistic bargaining concerning the effects on employees
of the decision to terminate those operations.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent refused to bargain with the
Union over the effects of the closing of its Bleeker Street plant, in
violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
In the Board's original Decision, it was determined that, in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act, it was necessary to order Respond-
ent, inter alia, to make the employees of the Bleeker Street plant
whole for ainy loss of pay suffered by reason of the unfair labor prac-
tices by paying each of them a sum of money equal to the amount he
would have earned as wages from the date of his termination of
employment to the time he secured equivalent employment elsewhere,
but in no event later than December 4, 1963, the date Respondent was
required to vacate the Bleeker Street premises under its agreement
of sale with the Housing Authority of the City of Newark. In the
first Supplemental Decision, the order was amended to terminate
Respondent's backpay liability on August 31, 1963, the date it went
out of business entirely by closing the Sussex Avenue plant.
In its opinion, the court suggested that, under all relevant circum-
stances of the case, a remedial order might not be required to effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act, even if a "technical violation" of the
Act were found, citing New York ?horror, Division of the Hearst
Corporation, 151 NLRB 834.15
We note at the outset that, in view of the findings made above,
Respondent's unlawful refusal to bargain over the effects of the clos-
ing of its Bleeker Street plant may not accurately be described as
merely a technical violation. To the contrary, the refusal of Respond-
ent to bargain, as required by the Act, over the effects of the closing
of the Bleeker Street plant has resulted in the deprivation of all
economic protection for the 75-80 former employees of that plant.
Moreover, a comparison with the Board's decision in the New York
Dlirror case emphasizes the difference between that situation and the
instant one, and illustrates the need for a meaningful remedial order
herein. In New York Mirror, "The sale and total cessation of the
Mirror's operations . . . permanently abolished all unit jobs formerly
held by employees represented by the Unions, and restoration thereof
and reinstatement of the employees with the Unions as their recog-
nized bargaining representatives are not sought by any party." 16
In the instant case, as found by the Board and the court, the sale of
15 350 P 2d at 197
16 151 NLRB 834, 841.
. ROYAL PLATING AND POLISHING CO. 997
the Bleeker Street property and the cessation of Respondent 's opera-
tions there did not eliminate all unit jobs , inasmuch as the Sussex
Avenue plant continued in operation at that time . Second, and most
significantly , the parties in New York Mirror specifically "had
reached contractua l settlement of the employees ' severance pay and
termination rights in the event of abolishment of unit jobs ." 17 Here,
however, Barile 's deception, discussed above, prevented discussion
of those matters precisely at the time when invocation and utilization
of the practices and procedures of collective bargaining would have
been most likely to result in contractual settlement of the effects of
termination on the employees of the Bleeker Street plant. Finally, in
New York Mirror, "the Respondent continued the bargaining rela-
tionship after the shutdown by meeting and negotiating with the
Unions whenever requested ." 18 But, in the instant case, Barile
abruptly rebuffed the Union's attempt to discuss the effects of the
shutdown when he apprised union representatives of the sale on
June 14, after misleading them as to his plans for some time prior
to that date . We think that these differences between the two cases,
particularly as they relate specifically to the question of whether there
had been opportunity for bargaining , or actual bargaining on the
effects of the shutdown on the employees , are critical and that, con-
trary to our decision in the New York Mirror case , a remedial order
is both warranted and required herein.
As we stated in our initial decision , "In fashioning remedies the
Board must bear in mind that the remedy should `be adapted to the
situation that calls for redress ,' with a view toward `restoring the
situation as nearly as possible, to that which would have obtained but
for [the unfair labor practice]." 19
It is essential , of course , that Respondent be required to bargain,
upon request , about the effects of the closing on the Bleeker Street
plant employees . Under the present circumstances , however, a bar-
gaining order , alone, cannot serve as an adequate remedy for the
unfair labor practices committed. The Act requires more than pro
f orina bargaining , but pro forma bargaining is all that is likely to
result unless the Union can now bargain under conditions essentially
similar to those that would have obtained , had Respondent bargained
at the time the Act required it to do so . If the Union must bargain
devoid of all economic strength , we would perpetuate the situation
created by Respondent 's deliberate concealment of relevant facts from
the Union which prevented the Union from meaningful bargaining.
17 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
iD 148 NLRB at 548-549 , quoting from N L R B v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co , 304
U S. 333, and Phelps Dodge Corp, v. N.L R.B., 313 U.S. 177, 194.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We cannot assure such meaningful bargaining without first restoring
some measure of economic strength to the Union, since the Respond-
ent should have bargained when it was still in need of its employees'
services.
In order to recreate as nearly as possible the economic situation
that would have prevailed if the Respondent had not refused to per-
form its bargaining obligations in 1963, and in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act in the labor dispute before us, it is our considered
judgment that Respondent should be ordered to pay its Bleeker Street
employees amounts at the rate of their normal wages when last in
Respondent's employ, from the date of this Supplemental Decision
until the occurrence of the earliest of the following conditions :
(1) The date Respondent bargains to agreement with the Union on
those subjects pertaining to the effects of the closing on employees of
the Bleeker Street plant; (2) A bona fide impasse in bargaining;
(3) The failure of the Union to request bargaining within 5 days of
this Supplemental Decision, or to commence negotiations within 5
days of the receipt of Respondent's notice of its desire to bargain
with the Union; or (4) The subsequent failure of the Union to bar-
gain in good faith; but in no event shall the sum paid to any employee
exceed the amount he would have earned as wages from June 14, the
date on which Respondent terminated the Bleeker Street operations,
to the time he secured equivalent employment elsewhere, or August 31,
whichever occurred sooner.20
We believe that the limited wage payment period specified above,
which cannot be protracted by the Union through dilatory bargaining
practices, assures a remedial order which is tailored to the needs of
the situation presented and does not impose an undue or unfair bur-
den upon the Respondent. In these circumstances, the imposition of
a wage payment requirement in the present context is well within
the bounds of administrative discretion, as interpreted by the United
States Supreme Court. In the Fibreboard case,21 the Court upheld
the Board's order requiring the employer, inter alia, to resume its
subcontracted maintenance operation and to reinstate the affected
employees with backpay. In affirming the more sweeping order in that
case, the Court stated that :
There has been no showing that the Board's order restoring the
status quo ante to insure meaningful bargaining is not well
designed to promote the policies of the Act. Nor is there evidence
a' See, in this regard, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, 147 NLRB 788, 791-792, affd in pertinent
part 361 F 2d 512 (C.A. 5, May 19, 1965).
Nothing stated herein shall be construed as precluding the parties from agreeing, or
Respondent from urging in good faith, that the amounts which may accrue to employees
under the terms of our order be deducted from such monetary amounts as the parties may
agree are to be paid employees.
2L ,Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N.L.R B., 379 U.S. 203.
ROYAL PLATING AND POLISHING CO. 999
which would justify distributing the Board's conclusion that the
order would not impose an undue or unfair burden upon the
Employer.22
Here, though our order does not require restoration of the status quo
mate, it is designed to insure meaningful bargaining without dis-
turbing the present economic posture of all concerned. In our view,
this order contains the minimum requirement necessary to assure the
statutory bargaining which has been delayed until now by Respond-
ent's earlier unlawful course of conduct.
Still another consideration supports the order set forth herein. It
is appropriate to presume, as in Winn-Dixie, supra, that the employ-
ees would have retained their jobs at least until Respondent had ful-
filled its bargaining obligation with respect to subjects pertaining to
the effects of the closing, either by reaching agreement or by nego-
t iating to a genuine impasse. Particularly is this so since the parties
had been engaged in negotiations before the shutdown, and Respond-
ent retained the right to remain on the premises beyond the June 14
closing. Of course, had Barile notified the Union of his decision to
close the Bleeker Street operation when the parties began negotiations
for a new contract on April 30, the negotiations might well have con-
cluded at the time they did, with no losses suffered by the employees.
Barile, however, waited until June 14 to notify the Union that he
was terminating operations at the plant, thereby foreclosing the
employees from engaging in meaningful collective bargaining in
support of their economic demands for severance and other benefits.
Under these circumstances, we think it both reasonable and necessary
to require that "the employees whose statutory rights were invaded
by reason of Respondent's unlawful ... action, and who may have
suffered losses in consequence thereof, be reimbursed for such losses
until such time as the Respondent remedies its violation by doing
what it should have done in the first place." 23 In any event, we
believe that an order embodying the remedy described above is the
most appropriate means of insuring that Respondent engage in
meaningful good- raith bargaining as required by the Act.
For all of the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in its prior
decisions in this case, the Board adopts as its Order its previously
amended Order'24 as modified herein and set forth below in its
entirety.
23 Id., 216 . In reaching its conclusion , the Court quoted with approval its language in
Virginsa Electric and Power Company v . N.L.R.B., 319 U. S. 533 , 540, that the Board's
orders are not to be disturbed " unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt
to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of
the Act."
See also Town d Country Manufacturing Company, Inc. v N1N L.R B., 136 NLRB 1022,
1030-31, enfd 316 F.2d 846 (C.A 5).
23 Winn-Dixie, supra, 792.
u 148 NLRB 545 and 152 NLRB 619, supra.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the Respondent, Royal Plating and Polishing Co., Inc., Newark,
New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain with Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local 44, AFL-
CIO, with respect to the effects on employees of its decision to sell
the Bleeker Street plant.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Pay the employees of the Bleeker Street plant their normal
wages for the period set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers, and Helpers International Union, Local 44, AFL-
CIO, with respect to the effects on its employees of its decision to
close its Bleeker Street plant, and reduce to writing any agreement
reached as a result of such bargaining.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National
Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful
in checking compliance with this Order.
(d) Mail an exact copy of the attached notice narked "Appen-
dix," to Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers, and Helpers International
Union, Local 44, AFL-CIO, and to all employees of the Bleeker
Street plant. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 22 of the Board (Newark, New Jersey), after
being signed by its authorized representative, shall be mailed imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, as herein directed.
(e) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the above Second Supplemental
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WTE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Metal Pol-
ishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union, Local
ZOE CHEMICAI,,'CO., INC. 1001
44, AFL-CIO, with respect to the effects on our employees of
our decision to close the Bleeker Street plant, and reduce to
writing any agreement reached as a result of such bargaining.
WE WILL pay the employees of the Bleeker Street plant their
normal wages for the period required by a Decision and Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.
ROYAL PLATING AND POLISHING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 614 National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, Telephone Market 4-6151, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Zoe Chemical Co., Inc. and Margaret Weber, Esther Hay, Florence
Gagan, Mary Di Guiseppe, Madeline Gioletti, Margaret Pisarra,
Elizabeth Enzman , Helen Sujkowski, Rose De Giacomo, Julia
Struffolino, Mary Fink, Ana Bustos and Local 803, Allied
Aluminum and Industrial Union, Party to the Contract
Local 803, Allied Aluminum and Industrial Union (Zoe Chemical
Co., Inc.) and Mary Di Guiseppe, Madeline Gioletti, Elizabeth
Enzman , Rose De Giacomo , Julia Struffolino, Margaret Pisarra,
Esther Hay, Margaret Weber, Florence Gagan, Helen Sujkow-
ski, and Zoe Chemical Co., Inc., Party to the Contract. Cases
29-CA-39-1,2,.3-4,5,6,7,8,9, 10,11, and 12, 29-CB-16-1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, i , 8, 9, and 10. September 9,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent, Zoe Chemical Co., Inc., had not violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and Respondent,
Local 803, Allied Aluminum and Industrial Union, had not violated
Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, and he therefore recom-
mended dismissal of the complaint, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. The Charging Parties filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and the General Counsel also filed excep-
tions to the Decision and brief in support thereof.
On June 22, 1965, the National Labor Relations Board ordered that
the proceeding be remanded to the Trial Examiner for the purpose
160 NLRB No. 76.