Servico Protective Covers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 977 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

SERVICO PROTECTIVE COVERS, INC.
Servico Protective Covers, Inc. and Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO . Case 3-CA-4683
October 24, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On June 1, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Ralph Winkler issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Servico Protective Covers,
Inc., its officers , agents , successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended Order.
1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
2 The General Counsel and the Charging Party have excepted to the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's failure to find that Supervisor Norm Christie un-
lawfully interrogated employee Barry Van Buren and to the Administrative
Law Judge's failure to rule on whether or not Respondent 's attorney unlaw-
fully interrogated employee Terry Mazzarella . However, even were we to find
that these two interrogations violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act , they would
be only cumulative and would not affect the remedy.
Member Fanning would find that the two aforementioned interroga-
tions were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act . In sum, then , the Respon-
dent unlawfully interrogated employees in seven instances , unlawfully
threatened employees who were peacefully picketing and physically disrupt-
ed that picketing, and unlawfully refused to reinstate two sinking employees.
Further, it is clear that the Union represented a majonty of the Respondent's
approximately 50 employees , and that a majority of the employees went on
stake to demonstrate their support of the Union . Nonetheless, the Respon-
dent refused to bargain with the Union and committed numerous and serious
unfair labor practices Accordingly, having concluded that the Respondent's
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) would prevent a free and fair election,
Member }Fanning would issue a bargaining order- as part of the remedy
N.L R B v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575; see also Member Fanning's
dissenting opinion in Arthur F Derse, Sr., President, and Wilder Mfg Co,
Inc, 198 NLRB No. 123.
s TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
977
RALPH WINKLER, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed
by the aforenamed Union, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on Janu-
ary 14, 1972, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
(5) of the Act. Respondent's answer denies the alleged viola-
tions, and a hearing was held in this matter on March 7, 8,
and 20, 1972.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of witnesses , and upon considera-
tion of briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a New York corporation , with its princi-
pal office and plant in Perry, New York, where it is engaged
in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of tarpaulins, in-
sulated covers, and related products ; in 1971 its interstate
purchases exceeded $50,000 . Respondent admits, and I
find, that it is engaged in commerce within Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This case concerns Respondent's Perry plant which
opened in July, 1971.1 By November 10, a majority of
Respondent 's employees had signed union membership
cards whereupon the Union sought, but was refused, bar-
gaining recognition. A strike occurred, beginning on No-
vember 15, and several days later the Respondent rejected
the strikers' request that they be permitted to return to work.
The General Counsel alleges, in substance, that Re-
spondent engaged in a variety of specified conduct violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) by refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union, that the strike was an unfair labor practice
strike, and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
by refusing to reinstate the strikers and by discharging Rich-
ard Sanders . Respondent denies violating the Act in any
respect, and the issues are, principally, factual or evidenti-
ary ones.
Except for a category of "truckdrivers" whom the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Union would include and Respondent
would exclude , the parties agree that all production , mainte-
nance , plant clerical , shipping, and receiving employees
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit . In November,
1971, there were approximately 50 employees in this unit.
' All dates herein refer to 1971 unless otherwise stated
199 NLRB No. 160
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Sequence of Events
Edward Sherman is an International representative of
the Union. Outside the plant on November 8 or 9, 1971,
Sherman approached employee Richard Sanders in regard
to organizing Respondent's plant. On the evening of No-
vember 9, some 8 or 10 employees consequently attended an
organizational meeting at Sanders' house; Sherman ad-
dressed the group and distributed union membership cards.
By November 11, a majority of Respondent's 50 employees
had signed these cards.
On November 11, Sherman and employees Kip Brown
and Barry Van Buren went to the plant and advised Neil
Hinsperger, plant manager at the time, that a majority of the
employees had signed union cards which they offered to
submit for Hinsperger 's inspection and they thereupon re-
quested recognition of the Union as bargaining representa-
tive. Hinsperger said he had no authority in this matter and
he gave them the telephone number of Respondent's presi-
dent, Paul Christie. Within a few hours, Richard Slisz, a
union business manager, repeated the same request for rec-
ognition, this time by telephone call to Paul Christie; Christ-
ie refused.
At Mach's Grill that evening (November 11), Sherman
met with Brown, Van Buren, and about 10 other employees
and he recounted the Union's unsuccessful efforts to obtain
recognition earlier in the day. There then followed a discus-
sion of a strike as a,means of demonstrating the Union's
majority status; Sherman also mentioned during the discus-
sion , according to Brown, that a strike might enable the
employees to get a quick election. However, employee Kar-
en Kolodziej suggested and Sherman agreed that too few
employees were present at the meeting to warrant a stake
vote and it was decided that such vote await the group's next
scheduled meeting on November 15.
The next morning at work (November 12), Kip Brown
told Van Buren , according to Van Buren's testimony, that
employees were "starting to get a little nervous and scared"
because Paul Christie had been talking to individual em-
ployees (later allegedly reported by Brown to Van Buren as
Karen Kolodziej, Mary Hopper, Ron Roble, and Ruth
Menner)2 and also because Norm Christie (Paul Chnstie's
brother) had informed employees they would be discharged
if they took off the following Monday (November 15) for
deer hunting. Brown testified, on the other hand, that em-
ployees were scared because Paul Christie and Plant Man-
ager Hinsperger were "on their backs" to get out
production. In any event, that same morning at the plant
Brown circulated a paper entitled "Stake Vote" for the
signature of employees who favored a strike. Brown testified
that about 35 employees signed the paper. Brown and Van
Buren testified in effect that the cancellation of hunting
permission was the primary reason for the strike vote and
that the strike probably would not have occurred but for
such incident. Van Buren further testified that he did not
believe the strike was caused by Respondent's refusal to
recognize the Union and he did not recall even discussing
2 None of these four named employees testified concerning this matter,
and the General Counsel properly agreed that Van Buren's testimony was
clearly hearsay and did not establish that Paul Christie had spoken to these
employees.
such refusal in his strike vote discussions with Brown on
November 12.
Van Buren, meanwhile, had been in touch with Union
Representative Sherman. Late afternoon on November 12
Sherman gave to Van Buren printed picket signs for a strike
on Monday, November 15.
B. The Strike
A majority of the employees participated in the strike
which, as planned, began Monday morning. Later that day,
Sherman and some of the striking employees sought to meet
with Paul Christie to advise him in effect that they were thus
demonstrating their majority in support of the Union's rec-
ognition request; Christie refused to see them. Respondent,
meanwhile, made arrangements for hiring strike replace-
ments and it began employing replacements on November
16.
The record establishes, as the General Counsel asserted
at the hearing, that unconditional application for rein-
statement of the strikers was first made on November 19.
On that date, Sherman and a group of striking employees
told Plant Manager Hinsperger, Respondent official Abe
Pollackov, and Norm Christie that the strikers were ready
to return to work; they were advised, in response, that Re-
spondent "had no jobs available," and Paul Christie or-
dered them to leave the plant.
C. Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The General Counsel alleges that, contemporaneous
with the above-described union activities, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the conduct of named
individuals, including Norm Christie, a brother of
Respondent's President Paul Christie. Disclaiming respon-
sibility for Norm Chnstie's actions in question, Respondent
contends, among other things, that Norm Christie was a
rank-and-file employee at all material times rather than a
supervisor or other management representative.
Norm Christie began working for Respondent on No-
vember 8. He received the same hourly rate paid to Respon-
dent's rank-and-file employees and, according to
Respondent, his job was that of a utility man which he
described as "float[ing] around working." Neil Hmsperger
was the plant manager, and an individual named Stan Pytel
had left Respondent's employ as assistant plant manager
shortly before Norm Christie was hired and Respondent
asserts that Pytel's job was not filled. A few days after
joining Respondent, Norm Christie told Van Buren, accord-
ing to the latter's credible testimony, that he had taken over
Pytel's job as assistant plant manager. Employees testified
without contradiction that Norm Christie did not punch a
timeclock as did most other employees, and the record also
shows that employees went to him for assistance concerning
their work, that he occasionally occupied one of the two
desks in the plant, that he assigned work to employees and
had reprimanded at least one of them, and that he hired at
least two employees. Moreover, as is further indicated by
consideration of some of the incidents described hereinaf-
ter, there can be no question-at least I have none on the
basis of this record-that both management and the em-
SERVICO PROTECTIVE COVERS, INC. 979
ployees regarded Norm as occupying and exercising super-
visory status. I find that, at material times, Norm Christie
was a supervisor within Section 2(11) of the Act. N. L. R. B.
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 405 F.2d 1169, 1173 (C.
A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. W. R. Halls Distributor, 341 F.2d 359, 363
(C.A. 10).
The individual items of alleged 8(a)(1) conduct are now
taken up seriatim by subject matter, as alleged in the com-
plaint.
Interrogation
Plant Manager Hinsperger asked Barbara Letts on
November 10, according to Lett's testimony, what was
going on in the plant and who the ringleaders were and he
commented that the employees were either organizing a
union or planning to walk out.
Paul Christie told Patsy Gene Sanders on November 10
that he had heard something about union activities in
the plant and that her husband Richard was one of the
"ringleaders," and he inquired whether she knew about this;
he also told Mrs. Sanders that he would be "hurt" or "dis-
appointed" by Richard's role in these activities because he
had entrusted Richard with driving an expensive truck con-
taining costly merchandise. The same day Christie had a
similar conversation with Kip Brown about Richard San-
ders in which he also inquired about Brown's union involve-
ment, and the following day Christie similarly discussed the
matter with Richard Sanders. Christie disparaged unioniza-
tion on these occasions; however, he told both Richard and
Patsy Sanders that Richard would have ajob whether or not
the plant is unionized.
Norm Christie and Barry Van Buren were on a delivery
in Buffalo on November 10. Norm called his brother, Paul
Christie, from Buffalo about a business matter, and at the
conversation's end Van Buren asked Norm what was going
on in Perry. "Don't you know about it?", asked Norm, to
which Van Buren replied, "I don't know, what?" "You are
supposed to be in on it," said Norm. "In on what?", asked
Van Buren, "A union," replied Norm. Norm then asked if
Van Buren supported the Union, and Van Buren said he
did. Van Buren testified to then speculating whether the
employees would be fired by Hinsperger or perhaps had
already been terminated for trying to organize the plant.
According to Van Buren's testimony, Norm told Van Buren
"not to worry," that the employees "would not be fired" for
such reason, and that Hinsperger "could not fire us without
his [Norm's] okay."
A final item of interrogation by Norm occurred on
either November 11 or 12 when he asked employee Edward
Aldrich whether Aldrich would be attending a union meet-
ing that evening.
Promise of Benefits
This allegation is to the effect that Respondent prom-
ised employees an hourly increase of 10 cents on November
11 for the purpose of dissuading them from becoming or
remaining union adherents , such promise being made after
the Union had requested recognition earlier that day.
The Perry plant is a new operation as already indicated.
Production was low and behind schedule, and continued so
into November, according to Paul Christie, and no real
headway was being made. Meanwhile, Norm Christie was
attempting an "informal" timestudy in an effort to improve
production. The General Counsel's own witnesses support
this description of an unfavorable production picture. Thus,
Kenneth Pasquale testified that Respondent "kept com-
plaining we weren't putting out fast enough," and Kip
Brown testified that during the week of November 8 Paul
Christie and Hinsperger were on the employees' "backs with
respect to getting their production out."
On or about November 9 or 10, because of complaints
about their production and in an effort to raise their wages,
employees Van Buren, Pasquale, and Tarbell offered Norm
Christie a piecework proposition, whereby employees would
increase production above a stated minimum in return for
a wage increase. The matter was discussed by both Christies
and Hinsperger, and on November 11 Norm Christie told
Pasquale, Tarbell, and Van Buren that he would give them
a 10-cent hourly raise if they would turn out 80 "blankets"
a day for the next 2 weeks. Pasquale testified, but I do not
find, that Norm further prescribed as a condition of the
offer that the employees "didn't go for the Union."
Pasquale's pretrial affidavit of November 17 does not men-
tion this condition, Van Buren's testimony does not show it,
and Tarbell did not testify.
Withdrawal of Permission to go Deer Hunting
Deer hunting season opens in the Perry area on No-
vember 15. On or about November 10, and not before No-
vember 8-some witnesses testified to an earlier date, but
that was the first day of Norm Christie's employment-
employees Van Buren, Tarbell, and Pasquale raised with
Norm the matter of their being excused from work on No-
vember 15 to participate in the opening day of hunting.
Some testimony is to the effect that employees told
Norm they were taking off on November 15 and other
testimony is that employees asked for permission. In either
event, Norm informed the employees that they could take
off that day, and Van Buren spread the word that other
employees interested in hunting should contact Norm.
Norm apparently granted this permission without first
clearing with Paul Christie or Hinsperger, and Paul and
Norm Christie both testified that Paul told Norm the next
day that Norm had acted without authority and that Norm
should retract the permission for the reason, according to
Paul Christie, that Respondent could not spare the employ-
ees in view of the production picture described above. On
or about November 12 Norm accordingly advised Van Bu-
ren, Tarbell, and Pasquale together that employees could
not take off the day for hunting and Respondent would
discharge any employee who was absent for such reason.
According to General Counsel witness Van Buren, Norm
gave low production as the reason for withdrawing permis-
sion . Pasquale testified that Norm said "the Union" was
another reason for the cancellation and, while Tarbell did
not testify, Richard Converse testified that in a separate
conversation Norm purportedly explained the cancellation
along the lines of Pasquale's testimony. Van Buren's version
of this episode is, in my judgment, the credible one.
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Threats and Destruction of Picket Signs
Respondent has an office and a loading dock in the
same building occupied by Service Canvas Company in
Buffalo, New York, which is about 40 miles from Perry. It
is recalled that on November 19 Respondent had refused to
reinstate the strikers. On or about November 30, employees
Van Buren and Craig Freeman were picketing on a public
way at the Buffalo location with conventional "unfair to
labor" signs referring to both Respondent and Service Can-
vas. Paul and Norm Christie came on the scene and Paul
grabbed and tore up the picket signs which at the time were
propped against the picketers' cars. Paul told them to get
out of town and that he would have Buffalo police arrest
them before they could reach the city limits.
Although the record suggests some business connec-
tion between Respondent and Service Canvas, the parties
chose not to explore or litigate this relationship. However,
Respondent does not claim that the described picketing by
Van Buren and Freeman was unlawful or otherwise unpro-
tected.
D. Conclusions: Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The hunting and wage increase incidents occurred on
the heels of the Union's advent and such chronology stand-
ing alone is a suspicious circumstance in view of
Respondent's opposition to the Union. But these matters
must also be considered in light of the production situation
at the time-and there is no question it was not good-and
the offer of a wage increase must be additionally appraised
in light of the employees' own initiating offer a day or so
earlier to improve production in return for a wage increase.
Upon consideration of the entire context-both organiza-
tional and business-I am unable to find that this record
preponderantly establishes that Respondent either with-
drew hunting permission 3 or offered a wage increase for
reasons relating to the employees' organizational activities.
The record does support the Section 8(a)(1) allegations
of unlawful interrogation with respect to Hinsperger and
Paul Christie as described above, and as to Norm Christie
but only in regard to Aldrich." And I further find that
Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) by destroying
picket signs on November 30 and by otherwise disrupting
and making threats against peaceful picketing on that occa-
sion.
E. Conclusions: Cause of Strike and Failure to Reinstate
Strikers
The General Counsel contends that the strike was
caused, substantially, by Respondent's withdrawal of per-
mission to go hunting and therefore was an unfair labor
practice strike in view of his subsidiary contention that such
permission was withdrawn for unlawful reasons. I have re-
3I do not deem it particularly material , if at all, on the question of
Respondent's motivation for withdrawing such permission that Norm Christ-
ie later told Van Buren that Respondent should not have taken that action.
"It would be cumulative , and I therefore find it unnecessary, to consider
an additional allegation of interrogation involving Terry Mazzarella on No-
vember 20.
jected that latter predicate, however, and I conclude that the
strike was economic in nature rather than one caused by
unfair labor practices.
Although Paul Christie testified that all permanent re-
placements for strikers were hired before the strikers or the
Union in their behalf sought reinstatement on November
19, the record shows that Plant Manager Hinsperger did
hire two of 27 or 29 newly hired employees on November
23. Respondent thus violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) re-
specting two of the striking employees. N.L.R.B. v. Mackay
Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 303, 345-347; N.LR.B. v.
Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378. The General Coun-
sel thereupon speculated that perhaps more new employees
have been hired since November 19 in striker's jobs. This
may be true or it may not be so but the present record does
not establish such fact. However, should a later investiga-
tion show additional new hirings after that date, there may
be basis for further proceedings under The Laidlaw Corpora-
tion, 171 NLRB 1366, enfd. 414 F.2d 99 (C.A. 7), cert.
denied 397 U.S. 920, and American Machinery Corporation,
174 NLRB 130, enfd. 424 F.2d 1321 (C.A. 5).
F. Discharge of Richard Sanders
Richard Sanders was hired in July and the General
Counsel contends that his discharge in November was dis-
criminatorily motivated.
Sanders was one of Respondent's drivers. Late af-
ternoon on Friday, November 12, Paul Christie inquired
whether Sanders could leave that night with a shipment
which had to be delivered the following morning to a cus-
tomer in Albany, New York. Sanders said he would, and
Christie gave him some advance expense money for the trip
and suggested that Sanders get some sleep and return to the
plant about midnight to begin delivery. Christie knew at the
time that Sanders had just completed about 40 continuous
hours of over-the-road driving and related work.
Sanders thus left the plant Friday afternoon, refreshed
himself at home, and at about 8 p.m. went to a local tavern.
Sanders testified that he had six or eight beers, that he left
the tavern at about 10 p.m. but did not go directly home,
and that he awoke the next morning (Saturday), his wallet
empty and without any recollection of his whereabouts or
activities between 10 p.m. and his awaking the next day.
While further testifying to believing that he had been
drugged and not intoxicated at the time, Sanders admitted
the possibility that he had spent the Albany expense money
for beer or alcohol that night. (Sanders repaid this money
upon receiving his final paycheck).
Sanders' wife, Patsy, also worked at the plant. They do
not have a telephone. At her husband's behest, Patsy went
to the plant on either Saturday or Sunday afternoon to
request Paul Christie to come to the Sanders' residence so
that Sanders might explain to Christie his failure to make
the Albany trip. Christie said he could not leave the plant;
and, when he was informed that Sanders was too embar-
rassed to go to the plant, Christie suggested to Mrs. Sanders
that her husband come to the plant that afternoon , anytime
after 3:30 p.m., by which time the employees start leaving
for the day. Mrs. Sanders informed her husband of
Christie's willingness to see Sanders, and Christie waited for
SERVICO PROTECTIVE COVERS, INC. 981
Sanders at the plant until 6:30 p.m. Sanders did not appear
nor did he otherwise communicate further with Respondent
until receiving his discharge letter a few days later.
Paul Christie testified that he thereupon decided to dis-
charge Sanders and he did so by letter, as mentioned. The
record establishes that Sanders had been warned a month
before by both Plant Manager Hinsperger and Paul Christie
on an occasion of Sanders' arrest for intoxication during a
business trip but not while Sanders was driving.
The first organizational meeting was held at Sanders'
house, as indicated above, and Christie did inquire and
express disappointment respecting Sanders' role as a nng-
leader in those activities. It is also true, as the General
Counsel urges by way of exculpating circumstance, that
Sanders had just completed an arduous 40-hour stint. How-
ever, and while I gave no real weight to Chnstie's aforemen-
tioned statement that Sanders would have a job regardless
of union considerations, I am unable to find, particularly in
view of the October arrest incident, that Respondent's
claimed reason for discharging Sanders was pretextuous. I
therefore conclude that the record does not preponderantly
establish that Respondent discharged Sanders for discrim-
inatory reasons.
G. Refusal to Bargain
The Union had a substantial majority in either of the
bargaining units respectively claimed appropriate by the
Union and Respondent; though the one-driver difference
between them seems hardly important and I need not re-
solve the matter, I would include the "driver" category in
the unit. And it also appears that the Union requested and
that Respondent refused recognition of the Union.
Relying on standards under N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Co., 395 U.S. 575, the General Counsel urges that the bar-
gaining order is warranted in view of Respondent's alleged
campaign to dissipate the Union's majority status. This re-
quires consideration of the seriousness and extensiveness of
Respondent's unfair labor practices with a view to de-
termining "the possibility of erasing the effects of past prac-
tices and of ensuring a fair election (or a fair rerun) by the
use of traditional remedies ... " (395 U.S. at 614-615). The
allegations of the complaint, if found meritorious, would
clearly have met the Gissel test. However, the bulk of the
allegations have not been sustained and I am not satisfied
under applicable law that a bargaining order is warranted
by the remaining allegations which have been found. Local
Union No. 707, Teamsters (Claremont Polychemical Corpora-
tion), 196 NLRB No. 75. I accordingly do not sustain the
8(a)(5) allegation and I otherwise reject the request for a
bargaining order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their own and other employees' union membership and ac-
tivities and by harrassing and otherwise restraining and
coercing employees for engaging in protected picketing, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to reinstate two striking em-
ployees upon their application, Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Except as found herein, Respondent has not engaged
in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take appropriate affirmative action to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act. Because Respondent discrim-
inatorily rejected the application for reinstatement of two
employees, I shall recommend that Respondent offer rein-
statement to, and make whole, two striking employees
whose request for reinstatement was rejected on November
19, 1971. In the event that any employee turns down a
tender of reinstatement, the Order contemplates that Re-
spondent make such tender to all strikers until either the list
of strikers is exhausted or two such employees accept. All
backpay computations shall be in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 139 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Servico Protective Covers, Inc., Perry, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their own and
other employees' union membership and activities.
(b) Harassing and otherwise restraining and coercing
employees for engaging in protected picketing.
(c) Discriminating against employees for engaging in a
strike or for reasons of union membership and activities.
(d) In any other manner discriminating against em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer to two striking employees immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole as set forth in "The Remedy" section
above for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
(b) Notify the two employees if presently serving in the
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Armed Forces of the United States, of their employment
rights upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Services.
(c) Preserve and upon request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination or copying, all payroll
and all other records relevant for a determination of the
reinstatement and backpay requirements under the terms of
this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Perry, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 3, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
nal.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith?
6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
7 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL take back two striking employees and pay
them for their lost earnings since November 19, 1971.
WE WILL NOT question employees concerning their
own and other employees' membership and activities in
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or in
any other union.
WE WILL NOT harass or restrain or coerce employees
for engaging in picketing.
WE WILL NOT refuse to take back employees be-
cause they struck our plant or because they joined or
assisted Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner discriminate
against employees for union reasons or because they
exercise their rights under the Labor Management Re-
lations Act.
All our employees are free to join or remain mem-
bers of Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO,
or of any other union, or not tojom or remain members
unless such membership is required under a lawful con-
tract under the Labor Management Relations Act.
Dated By
SERVICO PROTECTIVE COVERS, INC
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify the two employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of their employment
rights upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 9th Floor Federal Building, 111 W.
Huron Street, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-
842-3100.