Security Plating Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 877 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

- SECURITY PLATING COMPANY, INC. 877
In view of my findings that the Respondent did not engage in any violative inter-
rogations ; did not render illegal assistance to Local 815 ; did not unlawfully refuse
to bargain with the Textile Workers; and did not discriminatorily discharge Treacy
and Kardel , it is believed that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Unions are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case , it is recommended . that the complaint herein be dis-
missed in its entirety.
Security Plating Company , Inc. and Local 67, Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers & Helpers International Union, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 21-CA-5484. June 29,1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 31,1964-.Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending' that ' it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the
Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision,
supporting briefs, and answering briefs. .
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision,
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommendations
of the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent Security Plating
Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommendations.
147 NLRB No. 148.
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was tried before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in Los Angeles,
California , on December 2, 3, and 4 , 1963,1 upon a complaint dated October 24,
based upon-'a charge filed ' August 7 . The complaint , as amended , alleges that Se-
curity Plating Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent, has unlawfully refused to
bargain with Local 67 , Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers & Helpers International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, discriminatorily discharged Minnie
Badillo, Juan Reyes, and Mickey Palmer; unlawfully interrogated and threatened em-
ployees, and that by such conduct the Respondent has committed unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as .amended, herein called the Act. A brief filed by counsel for the
General Counsel has been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a California corporation engaged at Pico Rivera , California,
in metal finishing and polishing. It annually performs services valued at more than
$50,000 for customers located outside the State of California . I find that the Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges, Respondent does not deny, and I find , that all production
and maintenance employees of the Respondent , including shipping and receiving
employees and truckdrivers employed at its plant but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, salesmen, professional employees, watchmen , and supervisors as defined
in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining , within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The Union began its organizational efforts at Respondent 's plant in early July,
and by July 19 , had been designated by 22 employees as bargaining representative.
On July 19, the Respondent received a letter from the Union asserting that the Union
had been authorized by a majority of the employees to act as exclusive bargaining
representative and demanding recognition. On the date of receipt of this assertion
and demand , the Respondent had 36 employees in the appropriate unit. As the
Union had been designated as bargaining representative by 22 of these , it was ob-
viously the majority representative on that date.
Fred H. Fischer , who described himself in his testimony as general manager of
the Respondent and who appears also to be one of its principal owners, stated on the
record 2 that he did not respond to the Union 's demand because on the previous day
he had received notice that the Union had filed a representation petition with the
Board. He said that he anticipated a determination of the Union's status by means of
an election.
Minnie Badillo , an employee , testified that on a date approximating that on which
Fischer received notice of the filing of the petition , she was called to Fischer's office
in the plant . There Fischer told her that there was no point in having a union,
that it would just cost money, and that he did not want any third party to "tell us what
to do." Fischer went. on to say that he would improve the physical condition of
the plant as soon as he could afford to do so. He then asked Badillo if she were
going to vote for the Union. She answered that she did not know.
1 All dates are in 1963 except as otherwise shown.
2 Fischer was called as an adverse witness by the General Counsel and testified only
concerning job classifications . He did not testify at any time In respect to the substantive
allegations of the complaint or, as a witness , deny any of the statements or conduct
attributed to him.
SECURITY PLATING COMPANY, INC. 879
Mickey Palmer, another employee, testified that early in the week of July 22,
she too was called to Fischer's office and met there with Fischer, Ernest Hudson,
and Ray Bracone.3 Fischer told Palmer that the Respondent was in straitened
financial circumstances and asked her what problems were bothering the employees.
Palmer said that there was no place for the women to eat lunch and that the plant
was dirty. Fischer asked how she felt about the Union and if she had signed a
union card. Continuing, Fischer asserted that Palmer had been distributing union
cards among the employees. When Palmer admitted that this was so, Fischer asked
her to tell him the names of those who had signed. It does not appear that
Palmer answered this last question. Fischer said that if the Union "was to come
into the Company" and "take over his plant," he would be unable to meet what
the Union would demand. Barbara Fischer, Fischer's wife and an office employee
of the Respondent, came in about this time and said tearfully that she and 'her hus-
band had planned a vacation trip that was canceled because of lack of money. Mrs.
Fischer said that money had been borrowed from relatives in an attempt to keep
the business afloat. Fischer then suggested that there might be a way to revoke
the authorization cards that had been signed and asked Palmer if she knew how this
could be done. Impressed by the protestations of financial distress, Palmer said
that she would try to find out. Fischer suggested that Palmer might be able to
have a petition signed by the employees revoking their authorizations, or that it
might be better if some sort of balloting was devised. Palmer said that she would
cooperate. Palmer testified that her sympathy was aroused and that she was also
moved by a statement from Fischer that if the Union was successful in organizing
the plant he would close it. Fischer said that as soon as the business started show-
ing a profit and after some debts were paid, he would devise some sort of profit-
sharing plan for the employees. A few days later, Palmer reported to Fischer that
the employees would forget about the Union and cooperate with him. Fischer said
that he was glad that they felt that way because otherwise he would have to close
the shop.
In the week of July 22, according to the testimony of Juan Reyes, Fischer said he
was changing his work assignment from one machine to another and would give
him a raise in pay . Fischer asked Reyes if he had signed a union card and said
he knew that Reyes had gone to a union meeting. Fischer said that if the Union
came into the plant he would have to close it. The next day, Fischer asked Reyes if
the latter had been notifying other employees about the holding of a union meeting
that evening. Reyes said that he had not. Fischer said that he had a witness to
the contrary and called in Reyes' working partner, Moses Prendez. The matter
ended inconclusively but the two employees were in Fischer's office for a period of
more than 30 minutes.
The testimony of Badillo, Palmer, and Reyes as abridged above stands unchal-
lenged. Fischer's testimony, as earlier noted, was limited to job classifications and
did not touch upon any of the described incidents. Neither Hudson nor Mrs. Fischer
was questioned about the meeting with Palmer and Bracone did not testify. I credit
the versions of Badillo, Palmer, and Reyes about what Fischer said to them on these
separate occasions and find that the conversations took place on or about the dates
specified in their testimonies.
On August 1 or perhaps a day or two before that, notices were posted in the plant
that a meeting of all employees would take place there at the end of the day shift.
Mr. and Mrs. Fischer, Foreman Hudson, and Ray Bracone attended. Mrs. Fischer
spoke of some sort of insurance plan that was available to employees. At some-
one's suggestion agreement was reached to vote oil the question of having a union.
At this point, Mr. and Mrs. Fischer left the room. An inspector, Cecilia Serrato,
prepared ballots and passed them out among the employees. Badillo testified that
he was seated next to Ray Bracone and that when she marked her ballot favoring
the Union, Bracone commented that he did not know she was "that way." The
Union won by a count of 13 to 12. The Fischers then returned to the room and
learned the result. Considerable discussion then developed among the employees
concerning advantages of union representation . At about this time a telegram was
delivered to Fischer coming from a union representative, protesting the voting which
had just taken place. Badillo testified that Fischer was angry and said "bad words,"
3 Fischer described Hudson as a maintenance mechanic. The evidence establishes that
he also exercised authority to hire and discharge. I find that Hudson acted as a foreman
in Respondent's plant and that he is a supervisor within the Act's meaning. Bracone
worked in the shipping department. He was believed by some, at least, of the employees
to hold a financial interest in the Respondent.
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asserted that there was a stool pigeon in the room and asked that person to identify
himself. Badillo testified that when the Fischers reentered the meeting Bracone
went up to them. Immediately, Fischer asked Badillo why she wanted the Union.
She answered that she thought a union "would help us." Fischer told the employees
that he could not afford to have a union and that if one came in everyone would
be out of a job. Palmer, testifying about the same occasion, quoted Fischer as
saying that no union was going to run his company and that he would close the
plant if the Union came in.4 A second vote was taken in which the Union received
but one ballot.
At the close of the' workday on August 2, Badillo was called to Fischer's office.
In Fischer's presence, Foreman Hudson said that none of the machine operators
wanted her as an assistant on their machines so that there was no job for her.
Badillo was given her final check and left the plant.
On August 2, Reyes was working on a degreasing machine with Prendez. The
machine, as described in the evidence, is a vat containing some liquid chemical
preparation in which parts are placed in preparation for finishing and polishing.
The vat and its contents are heated by a gas flame. Just before resumption of work
following the lunch period, the tank "boiled over." This was caused apparently be-
cause heat was applied at a time when there was insufficient liquid in the tank. It
was testified that the vapor from the degreaser spreading through the plant by reason
of the boil-over necessitated the refinishing or repolishing of a great number of parts.
Reyes testified that he shut off the gas heater when he went to lunch and that he had
not turned it on again. Prendez did not testify. At the close of the day, Fischer told
Reyes that he had been happy with him but that it was his fault that the degreaser
boiled over and that he was discharged.
Palmer, who became Respondent's employee in April and who was primarily
responsible for obtaining signatures on authorization cards for the Union, worked
during most of the period of her employment on a Harper machine. This was
described in the testimony as being the fastest and therefore the most difficult of
machines to work on.
Robert Theis, the Harper machine operator, testified. that parts are fastened to the
machine for buffing or polishing by means of caps or nuts. On-some occasion near
the end of Palmer's employment, according to Theis, he noticed that she was unscrew-
ing these caps or nuts with the result that the machine would jam and come to a halt.
He spoke to Palmer about this, he testified, but she denied. that she was responsible.
When the stoppages persisted he told Foreman Hudson about it and finally reported
the matter to Fischer. Theis is still in Respondent 's employ. Irene Garavito, who
left her job with the Respondent a week or two before the hearing, testified that she
worked on the machine with Palmer in late July and early August. She too testified
that she saw Palmer unscrewing caps with the result that the machine would break
down and that in fear that she herself might be blamed for this, reported the matter
to an inspector, Cecilia Serrato, and then to Fischer. Barbara Fischer testified that
Irene Garavito and another employee. Yolanda Mendoza, came into Fischer's office
on August 8 and reported that Palmer was removing caps from the spindles causing
the machine to stop and damaging some of the tools. Barbara Fischer testified
that she discussed the matter with her husband and although both were aware that
the discharge of Palmer might result in an accusation that it was motivated by
Palmer's activity in behalf of the Union, it was decided that she must be let go. At
the close of the day, Palmer was called to Fischer's office. Palmer asked what
she had done. Fischer told her that they would wait for Foreman.Hudson. When
Hudson appeared, Palmer asked, "What did I do now?" Fischer answered that it was
what she had not done. Fischer said that she had told him that she would cooperate
with him 5 but that at the meeting on August 1 she had said nothing. Palmer retorted
that she saw no need to say anything because Fischer seemed to be doing very well
without her aid. Fischer then said that Palmer was not doing her job as she was
4 Fischer' s testimony did not concern this meeting. Mrs. Fischer did not allude to any
possible closing of the plant in her testimony. Some of Respondent's witnesses who were
questioned about such threats recalled that Fischer said he could not improve working
conditions and remain solvent. These witnesses concluded that a union would force the
closing of the plant. I find that Fischer stated the dilemma forthrightly ; that if the
employees insisted upon having a union they would risk the continuance of their
employment.
5
1 find this to be a reference to Palmer ' s undertaking to have the employees abandon
the Union.
SECURITY PLATING COMPANY, INC. 881
supposed to be doing; that she was unscrewing nuts from the "spindles. " Palmer
denied that she had done anything of the sort . Hudson said nothing . Palmer was
then discharged.
Foreman Hudson testified that for about a week the Harper machine was inopera-
tive for perhaps 25 to 30 percent of the time because parts "were being screwed off
the spindles ." Hudson explained that this caused the machine to "lock up and
bend tools" with the result of stopping the machine 's operation for about 30 minutes.
Fischer asked Hudson if Palmer was "assigned to the job of keeping these tools,
these nuts on the spindles? Was that part of her job, do you know?" Hudson an-
swered, "Not as far as I know." On cross-examination, Hudson testified that Palmer
was one of the best among the employees on the Harper machine ; that "Mickey
usually did a good job as far as I know. I never had a squawk about her ." Fischer's
question , "To the best of your knowledge were [ Badillo , Reyes, and Palmer] dis-
charged for union activities?" he answered , "No." To the further question, "To
the best of your knowledge were they discharged for incompetence or inability to
do the work properly?" he replied, "They were." Hudson was not questioned about
what passed between Palmer and Fischer on the day of discharge . Fischer did not
testify in respect to any of the discharges.
Badillo . had worked in the same plant for one of Respondent 's predecessors in
the period from 1955 to 1958. She was hired by the Respondent in February 1963.
Sometime after the beginning of her employment , perhaps in the month of March,
she asked Fischer for a raise. Fischer referred her to Hudson . Badillo told Hudson
that she had been making $ 1.40 an hour when she left her job in 1958 and thought
that she should now be paid more than the $1.25 per hour she was receiving . Hudson
told her that he would consider the matter after he had observed her work perform-
ance for a longer period. In April , Badillo took leave of absence for about a month
and was rehired on May 8. Sometime in June, she was given a wage increase
of 10 cents an hour. Hudson testified that machine operators complained to him
that Badillo was not fast enough to perform her work satisfactorily . Robert Theis,
the operator of the Harper machine, and Travis Davis, the operator of a similar
machine, testified to the same effect . Armida Valenzuela, a fellow worker , testified
that Badillo was too slow to keep the spindles covered on a rosette machine. Serrato,
an inspector , testified that it was part of her function to watch employees at work
and that Badillo was not "a very fast worker ." There is no testimony that Badillo's
work performance deteriorated toward the end of her employment and she testified
that she was never criticized for being too slow . It is obvious that Fischer was deeply
worried that the Union might become the bargaining representative of his employees.
Much of his conduct and his expressions to the employees to forestall such a develop-
ment I will find to constitute unfair labor practices . I find that Badillo until her
discharge had been an acceptable employee. She was rehired in May after her
absence and was given a wage increase in June. There is no suggestion in.this record
that she did anything on August 2 to merit discharge . She had , however, to
Fischer 's knowledge on the previous day voted in favor of the Union and this made
her in Fischer 's evaluation undesirable . I find that Badillo was discharged on August 2
because she had identified herself to Fischer as a union supporter . By the discharge
the Respondent discriminated against Badillo to discourage membership in or
activity in behalf of the Union and thereby engaged in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Juan Reyes worked for the Respondent for little more than 3 weeks. Before the
end of July , Fischer promised him a raise , asked him if he had signed a union card,
and said that-he knew that Reyes had gone to a union meeting. The next day
Fischer in effect accused Reyes of talking to other employees about a union meeting.
Hudson testified that it was Reyes' responsibility to turn off the gas flame under the
degreasing tank before the lunch period . Reyes testified that he did so on August 2.
Nonetheless the vat boiled over , and I credit testimony by Respondent 's witness that
the resulting vapor damaged some parts so that refinishing was required. Hudson
testified that he thought Reyes had failed to turn off the burner and that the discharge
was motivated by this belief . The matter is not free from doubt but I do not
consider that Hudson 's evaluation of Reyes' responsibility for this incident is un-
reasonable . The Respondent had valid cause for discharging Reyes and although the
Respondent may well have believed Reyes to be a union supporter , I am not convinced
that he was discharged for that reason . I do not find that the discharge of Reyes
was unlawful.
Palmer was hired in April and in mid -July was given a wage , increase. The
testimony of Irene Garavito that she saw Palmer unscrewing caps on the Harper
machine and thus causing a machine failure is puzzling . Garavito, at the time she
756-236-65-vol. 147-57
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified was not in Respondent 's employ , and has no discernible interest in the out-
come of these proceedings . Garavito must have thought she saw what she considered
to be acts of sabotage by Palmer and reported this to Serrato and to Fischer. Robert
Theis, the machine operator , testified that he saw Palmer do much the same thing on
more than one occasion and that he told Hudson and Fischer about it. Palmer denied
that she loosened any caps or nuts, said that Theis had never accused her of such
conduct, and asserted that the machine , for a variety of reasons , often broke down.
Hudson, it may be recalled , testified that Palmer was one of the best workers on the
machine and that no complaint about her had ever come to him . Fischer, of course,
did not testify about Palmer . If Palmer had been trying to jam the machine as
Theis testified , and if Theis had so reported to Hudson , the, latter , as Respondent's
foreman , surely would have remembered it and would have taken action upon it.
I conclude that Theis did not make any such report to Hudson and I credit the testi-
mony of Palmer that the matter was never mentioned to her. Further, I credit
Palmer's denial that she did anything designed to bring about a breakdown. On the
occasion of her discharge , Fischer complained that Palmer had failed to cooperate
with him in urging the employees to abandon the Union . Palmer 's testimony to that
effect is undenied, and I credit it . It thus becomes clear that at least among the
reasons for Palmer's discharge was Fischer 's displeasure with her in this connection.
I find therefore that Palmer was discharged because , perhaps, among other reasons,
she did not cooperate as fully as Fischer desired in his efforts to bring about the
abandonment of the Union . Her discharge , therefore , constituted an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
I find on the basis of the uncontroverted testimony of Badillo , Palmer , and Reyes
that Fischer questioned them about their interest in the Union , told them that the
result of Union organization might be the closing of the plant , implied to Reyes that
those who attended union meetings were under surveillance , and promised them that
as soon as business conditions permitted , their complaints about working conditions
would be satisfied . These interrogations , threats, implications of surveillance, and
promises of benefits , interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and constituted unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act . The reiteration of the
threat to all of the employees who attended the meeting in the plant on August 1
that the advent of the Union might bring about the closing of the plant constitutes
a further violation of that section.
As has been found , the Union was the majority representative of Respondent's
employees on July 19. On or about that date and thereafter , the Respondent engaged
in a series of unfair labor practices designed to frighten or to allure the employees
away from that choice . Even on August 1, however , the result of the first ballot
showed that a majority of those voting still preferred such representation . Support
for the Union practically vanished , however , when Fischer said that he might be
forced to close the plant . The Respondent has never replied to the Union 's demand
for recognition and bargaining except to attempt by unlawful means to destroy the
Union 's majority . I find that the Respondent 's refusal to bargain with the Union is
not based upon any doubt of the Union 's majority status but is rather a studied refusal
to accord to employees the rights which the Act guarantees. I find that by the
refusal to bargain the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The unfair labor practices found require the customary cease-and-desist order
which in the light of Respondent's extreme reaction to the exercise by its employees
of their Section 7 rights should be broad enough to encompass any further inter-
ference with those rights. It will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request,
bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees in the appropriate
unit and if agreement is reached, reduce it to writing and sign it. As to Minnie
Badillo and Mickey Palmer, it will be recommended that each be offered immediate
SECURITY PLATING COMPANY, INC. 883
and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position and that each
be made whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of discharge by payment
to each of whatever sum she would have earned in Respondent's employ from the date
of discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement less other earnings , if any, during
that period. Backpay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall bear interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum computed quarterly as in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act and on and since July 17, 1963, has been and now is the exclusive
bargaining representative of Respondent 's employees.
2. All production and maintenance employees of Respondent including shipping
and receiving employees and truckdrivers employed at its plant but excluding office
clerical employees , salesmen, professional employees , watchmen , and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. By refusing on July 19, 1963, and thereafter to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
4. By discharging Minnie Badillo and Mickey Palmer because of their activity
in behalf of or interest in the Union or because of the failure of Palmer actively to
oppose the Union, the Respondent has discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure
of employment to discourage membership in and activity in behalf of the Union,
and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By the refusal to bargain , by the discharges, by questioning employees about
their feelings toward the Union or voting intentions , by threats that the advent of
the Union might bring about the closing of the plant, by holding out promises of
benefits if the employees would forgo unionization, and by implying that union meet-
ings were under surveillance , the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and
has thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of
the Act.
6. 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
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this proceeding , I recommend that Security Plating Company, Inc.,
Pico Rivera , California, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 67, Metal Polishers , Buffers, Platers
& Helpers International Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its
employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(b) By means of discharge , interrogations , threats, promises of benefits, or im-
plications of surveillance , or in any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of 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) Upon request bargain collectively with Local 67, Metal Polishers , Buffers,
Platers & Helpers International Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit and embody any understanding reached in a
signed contract.
(b) Offer to Minnie Badillo and Mickey Palmer immediate and full reinstatement
each to her former or substantially equivalent employment and make each whole
in the manner and to the extent set forth in that section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post at its place of business in Pico Rivera, California, the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the Twenty-first Region shall after being duly signed by the Respondent
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a
period -of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of receipt of this Decision what steps it has taken in compliance.?
6 In the event 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 Exam-
iner" in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by the substitution of the words
"a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a
Decision and Order."
7 In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be
modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommend Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Local 67, Metal Polishers,
Buffers, Platers & Helpers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached embody it in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees including shipping and re-
ceiving employees and truckdrivers employed at the plant but excluding
office clerical employees, salesmen, professional employees, watchmen,
and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to Minnie Badillo and Mickey Palmer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and make each
of them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our
discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their union sympathies or
attitudes or imply that we know who attends union meetings or threaten that the
plant may close because of the selection of a union, or promise benefits in an
effort to defer unionization or in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist Local 67, Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers International
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or .protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor orga-
nization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above- named labor organization.
SECURITY PLATING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
PERMACOLD INDUSTRIES, INC. 885
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate with the Board 's Regional Office, 849 South Broad-
way, Los Angeles, California , Telephone No. 688-5204 , if they have any questions
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Permacold Industries , Inc. and Miscellaneous Warehousemen &
Production Employees Union Local No. 781 , affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America . Cases Nos. 13-CA-5762 and
13-CA-5947. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 27, 1964, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it.cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. The Trial
Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
that those allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, Re-
spondent filed a motion to reopen hearing and/or record,' exceptions
to the Decision, a brief in support of the exceptions, and a brief answer-
ing the General Counsel's cross-exceptions. The General Counsel
filed a brief in opposition to the above-mentioned motion and cross-
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member pan®1 [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Decision, the motion, the opposition
1 Subsequent to the hearing and the issuance of the Trial Examiner ' s Decision , Respond-
ent filed a motion to reopen the record to permit it to adduce additional evidence in con-
nection with the supervisory status of Papas and Pankiewicz and the veracity of several
witnesses . Attached to the motion were four affidavits : two by witnesses at the hearing
repudiating their testimony ; one by a witness stating that another named witness, now
dead, had admitted that he had lied at the hearing ; and one by a nonwitness stating that
a witness had wanted him to testify that three individuals in dispute were foremen, al-
though the affiant said they were not. The General Counsel opposes the motion. As we
find that a preponderance of other credited testimony establishes that Papas and
Pankiewicz are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, we deny the
motion. Nebraska Bag Company, et al. , d/b/a Nebraska Bag Processing Company, 122
NLRB 654, 655.
147 NLRB No. 131.