Sheet Metal Workers, Local 12

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1973

205 N.L.R.B. 25 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

SHEET METAL WORKERS , LOCAL 12
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local
Union No. 12, AFL-CIO (Robroy Industries, Inc.)
and Mary Sardone. Case 6-CB-2513
July 24, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On March 21, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas S. Wilson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-ex-
ceptions and a brief.
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 at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs I
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
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 , as modified
below , and hereby orders that Respondent Sheet Met-
al Workers ' International Association , Local Union
No. 12, AFL-CIO, Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , its offi-
cers, agents , and representatives , shall take the action
set forth in said recommended Order , as so modified.
1. Substitute the words "In any other manner" for
the words "In any like or related manner" in para-
graph 1 (b) of the recommended Order.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
i Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the
record , exceptions , and briefs adequately set forth the contentions of the
parties.
2 The part of the Decision entitled "The Remedy" is hereby modified to
provide that Respondent Union shall make Mary Sardone whole for any loss
of pay or other benefits she may have suffered by reason of the unlawful
discrimination against her , by paying to her a sum of money equal to that
which she would have earned from the date of her demotion on May 22, 1972,
to 5 days after the date Respondent notifies the Company and Mary Sardone,
in writing, that Respondent has no objections to the employment of Mary
Sardone as a P B leader on the first shift and recommends that the Compa-
ny reinstate her to her former position as such United Association ofJourney-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada , Local 633 , AFL-CIO (Joseph E Tabor, et al), 173 NLRB
1333, Warehouse Union Local 860, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Admiral Corporation and
Transcontinental Music Corporation), 195 NLRB 68
25
Chairman Miller concurs in the result but relies solely on the Administra-
tive Law Judge's findings to the effect that Respondent Union caused Mary
Sardone's loss of seniority without having fulfilled its fiduciary duty to in-
form her of her obligation to continue to pay dues while on extended sick
leave and unable to work, and to notify her of the consequences of such
nonpayment Associated Transport, Inc, 156 NLRB 335 and 169 NLRB 1143,
enfd sub nom N L R B v Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
401 F 2d 509 (C A 2, 1968), cert denied 394 U S 213, Conduction Corpora-
tion, 183 NLRB 419 (1970). He would find it unnecessary, therefore, to reach
or pass upon the other bases for the Administrative Law Judge's decision
The Chairman therefore dissociates himself from his colleagues' adoption of
such other bases, such as that portion of the Administrative Law Judge's
findings and rationale relating to other allegedly unlawful aspects of the
implementation of the checkoff and union-security provisions of the agree-
ment between the parties
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
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:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Robroy
Industries, Inc., to discriminate against Mary
Sardone or any other employee in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees of Robroy Industries, Inc., in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed to all em-
ployees in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent such rights may be affected by the proviso
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL notify Robroy Industries, Inc., in
writing, that we have no objection to the employ-
ment by Robroy of Mary Sardone as a P.B. lead-
er on the first shift and will recommend that she
be reinstated to that job without loss of benefits
or seniority.
WE WILL make whole Mary Sardone for any
loss of pay or other wages and benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against her.
WE WILL reimburse Mary Sardone for any rein-
statement or reinitiation fee she may have paid
by reason of our discrimination against her.
SHEET METAL WORKERS'
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION, LOCAL UNION No 12,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
205 NLRB No. 7
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone
412-644-2977.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS S. WILSON, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge duly filed on October 20, 1972, by Mary Sardone, an
individual, hereinafter referred to as the Charging Party, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
referred to herein as the General Counsel,I and the Board
respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 6 (Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania), issued its complaint dated December
29, 1972, against Sheet Metal Workers' International Asso-
ciation, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, herein referred to
as the Union or Respondent.
The complaint alleges that Respondent had engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, herein referred to as the Act.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allega-
tions of the complaint but denying the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held before me
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on January 31, 1973. All parties
appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence material
and pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the hearing
oral argument was waived. Briefs have been received from
General Counsel and Respondent on March 5, 1973.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find
that:
Robroy Industries, Inc., herein called the Company or
Robroy, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office
located in Verona, Pennsylvania, is engaged in the manu-
facture and nonretail sale of electrical conduit and fittings,
molded plastic products, and plastic coatings. During the
12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the
complaint, the Company received goods valued in excess of
I This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General
Counsel at the hearing
$50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for use in its Verona plant.
Accordingly, I find that the Company is now, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II THE RESPONDENT
Sheet Metal Workers ' International Association, Local
Union No . 12, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Mary Sardone began her employment with the Company
in 1965. Under the terms of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment existing at that time between Respondent and Robroy,
Sardone was under obligation to become a member of Re-
spondent. At the time of her hire Sardone signed a Respon-
dent authorization card and an authorization for the
Company to check off her initiation fees and dues to Re-
spondent. She has never since revoked this checkoff author-
ization . At all material times through the month of
February, 1971, Sardone's dues have been deducted from
her paycheck by the Company.
She commenced her employment as a plasti-bond opera-
tor (P.B. operator) but prior to 1971 had become a P.B.
leader, a position paying 20 cents per hour more than that
of an operator.
On February 18, 1971, while on her way to work, Sardone
was involved in an automobile accident in which she sus-
tained serious injuries preventing her return to work until
May 22, 1972.
Under the checkoff procedure, Sardone's dues to Re-
spondent were paid through the month of March 1971. She
paid no dues to Respondent from that date to and including
her return to work on May 22, 1972.
Although Sardone had been initiated into the Union in
1965, she was reinstated into the Union on October 25,
1967, by Respondent Business Manager Robert G. Ferla
after his election to that office in which he unseated the then
incompetent business manager. At that reinitiation ceremo-
ny, as at the time of her original initiation, Sardone signed
papers acknowledging the receipt of a copy of Respondent's
constitution and ritual which, in the small print, acknowl-
edged that "I have read the same (referring to the constitu-
tion and ritual) and am familiar with and am willing to
subscribe to all of the provisions and requirements there-
of." 2
On April 8, 1971, the Company and Respondent signed
a collective-bargaining agreement containing the following
union-security clause:
ARTICLE II
2 Sardone denied having received the copy of said constitution or of the
collective-bargaining agreement at that or any subsequent time until the
same were mailed to her in June 1972 from the union office
Respondent 's testimony was only to the effect that constitution and ritual
were "available" at each initiation ceremony.
SHEET METAL WORKERS , LOCAL 12
SCC. 1. As a condition of employment all new employ-
ees hired for jobs covered in this agreement shall be-
come and remain members of the Union on the 61st
day following the date of employment.
SCC. 2. New employees shall be considered on proba-
tion for a period of sixty (60) days after date of hiring.
From the date of her accident to the date of her return
to work Sardone received no communication, oral or writ-
ten, from the Union.
In July 1971, Sardone telephoned the union office on two
occasions asking to speak to Ferla. On each occasion Ferla
was unavailable. The secretary took Sardone's name and
promised that Ferla would return her call. Ferla never re-
turned the calls.
With her doctor's permission Sardone returned to work
on May 22, 1972. The Company returned her to her old
position as P.B. leader. Employee Dorothy Ostanoski, who
had been "acting" P.B. leader during Sardone's absence,
was returned to her former position as a P.B. operator.
Ferla received information about 10:30 a.m. on May 22
from his shop steward that Sardone had returned to work.
Early that afternoon Ferla arrived at the company plant
demanding an audience with Sardone. Then in the presence
of Company Vice President James Young, Plant Manager
Richard Ruszkiewicz and Shop Steward Robert Alston,
Ferla told Sardone that she had lost her union membership
because she did not pay her dues during her illness and,
therefore, would have to become a new employee. Sardone
inquired whether Respondent should not have notified her
of her dues deliquency and whether there was anything she
could do. Ferla answered that due to the length of her
illness, not even a withdrawal card from Respondent would
have enabled her to maintain her membership and that she
had lost her seniority for job bidding and layoff purposes
but would retain that seniority for vacation purposes as was
done in the case of some 11 other employees who had re-
cently been suspended from membership.
Promptly thereafter Dorothy Ostanoski was made the
P.B. leader in lieu of Sardone without going through the job
bidding required under the April 8 collective-bargaining
agreement.
However Sardone was employed by the Company as a
new employee as a P.B. operator on the second shift, i.e., 3
p.m. to I1 p.m. whereas, as the P.B. leader, she had worked
on the first or daytime shift. In addition to the change of
shifts Sardone's wage rate was reduced by 20 cents per hour.
B. Conclusions
With a couple of omissions the opening paragraph of
Respondent's brief puts the instant case about as succinctly
as is possible when it states:
The instant case involves the loss of seniority for job
bidding and layoff and rehire purposes of the com-
plainant, Mary Sardone. This loss of seniority was oc-
casioned by Mrs. Sardone's failure to pay her union
dues to Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 12 while recovering from inju-
ries sustained in an automobile accident.
The omissions noted above consist of the fact that it was
27
the Union which caused Sardone's loss of seniority plus the
fact that Sardone, in addition, lost 20 cents per hour due to
her demotion to P.B. operator from her former position of
P.B. leader as well as the fact that she was forced, as a new
employee, to work the second shift instead of the first shift
as she had done prior to her accident.
On May 22, upon discovery that Mary Sardone had re-
turned to work as the P.B. leader, Ferla demanded that
Robroy take action against Sardone because article II, sec-
tion 1 of the collective-bargaining agreement required, as a
condition of employment, that all new employees must "be-
come and remain members of the Union on the 61st day
following the date of employment" coupled with the fact
that from the date of her accident on February 18, 1971, to
the date of her return to employment on May 22, 1972,
Sardone had failed to pay her monthly dues to Respondent
and hence, according to Ferla and the phraseology of
Respondent's consitution and ritual, had lost her "good
standing" as a union member and thus, in treating ev-
erybody alike, Sardone had lost all her rights as a union
member which included her right to her job.'
During his appearance on the stand, Ferla bragged about
the fact that he went strictly by "the book" but treated all
the employees alike. The only trouble with that in the in-
stant case is that here Ferla went by the wrong books, to wit,
the collective-bargaining agreement and the Union's consti-
tution and ritual, whereas he should have gone by the Act.
When Sardone was originally hired in 1965, she signed as
a part of the employment ritual a document handed her by
Robroy personnel department which stated in pertinent
part as follows:
I, hereby apply for membership with the above-
named Local 12, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and
designate the aforesaid union as the sole and exclusive
collective bargaining agent pertaining to negotiations
of wages, hours, all working conditions, grievances,
disputes and all issues relating to my status as an em-
ployee and member of the Union.
I hereby authorize and direct my employer to check
off from my wages, all dues, and initiation fees payable
to the above-named Local Union, and to remit the said
monies to the aforesaid Local Union.
This documents was provided to Robroy by Respondent
Union for the purpose of distribution to new hires.
Board law presently requires that the two above referred
to matters to be handled as completely unrelated items and
in separate documents.
This document has never since been revoked by Sardone.
Under it her dues were checked off and remitted to Respon-
dent from the date of her hire to the date of her accident.
The evidence in the instant hearing proves that this same
3 However, in his stated efforts to treat Sardone the same as all other
employees, Ferla permitted Sardone to retain her seniority for vacation pur-
poses because, "due to his efforts," Ferla had gained such a concession from
Robroy for 11 other employees who had violated the collective- bargaining
agreement by not keeping Robroy informed as required thereby as to their
return to work. Sardone had not been guilty of any such contractual viola-
lions-only her failure to pay the monthly dues
° As Sardone executed the above agreement more than 6 months prior to
the filing of her charge in the instant matter, no unfair labor practice can be
based upon this document See Section 10(b) of the Act.
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practice and procedure is still in use at Robroy in the hiring
of new employees . As each new employee is going through
the hiring process, the Company 's personnel office provides
that individual with an application for union membership
and a checkoff statement authorizing the Company to check
off and remit to Respondent that employee 's initiation fees
and monthly dues.
Article II, section 3 of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment signed between Respondent and Robroy on April 8,
1971, provides:
Sec. 3 Checkoff.
When Robroy Industries receives check off authori-
zation for new members , on the first day of hire they will
begin deducting the initiation fee spread out over the
next three pay periods.
In the event the third pay is the last pay in that
particular month, an additional months dues will be
deducted so that the new member will be current and
his dues paid in advance for the following month. In
the event the third deduction occurs during the first
pay of a month , only one half will be deducted and the
months dues will be deducted from the last pay of that
month.
No money for individuals will be submitted until the
deduction for initiation fee and first month dues com-
plete.
Union dues deduction and check mailing scheduling
will be established for the ensuing year and mailed to
the Local Union office on the last calendar month of
the year. (underscoring added.)
Despite the inartistically placed comma in the first para-
graph of said quote , this section obviously provides that the
checkoff becomes applicable from the very first day of hire.
However, the Act provides that only "on or after the 30th
day following the beginning of such employment" is a new
employee required to become a union member . Also the
Board has held that it is the employee's choice as to how he
wants to pay his initiation fee and dues,5 whether by check-
off or by cash payment.
Obviously article II, section 3 does not comply with those
requirements. Nor does the practice of the parties in their
employment routine under article II, section 1 of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement in forcing new hires to execute
union application and checkoff authorizations comply with
the Act.
Congress outlawed the closed shop many years ago. The
difference between the outlawed closed shop and the em-
ployment practices noted above under the instant collec-
tive-bargaining agreement is to all intent and purposes
negligible . The aforementioned clauses of the collective-
bargaining agreement together with the practices thereun-
der are thus illegal under the Act Hence Ferla was going
by the wrong book . However Ferla testified that the only
way a new employee was permitted to pay his initiation fee
and dues was by the checkoff.
The fact that the employee would get the checked-off
5 International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Local 601,
AFL-CIO ( Westinghouse Electirc Corporation), 180 NLRB 1062 (1970), N L
R B v Campbell Soup Co, 378 F 2d 259 (C A 9, 1967), cert denied 289 U S
900 (1967)
monies already withheld from his paycheck in the event he
did not successfully complete his probationary period is of
no consequence here for the reason that under this contrac-
tual arrangement he was not accorded the 30 days "free
ride" required in the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
So, even assuming arguendo that it was incumbent upon
Sardone to have paid her dues in cash during the period she
was incapacitated, the Union here cannot rely upon its so-
called union-security clause which, although legal on its
face, was in fact illegal in practice, to justify the discrimina-
tion it caused Robroy to practice upon Sardone on May 22,
1972
General Counsel maintained that Respondent failed in its
fidiciary duty to Sardone in not having informed her of her
obligation to pay her dues before causing her loss of seniori-
ty. Respondent adduced a great deal of testimony indicat-
ing that Sardone had signed statements to the effect that she
had read through Respondent's constitution and ritual and
subscribed thereto, that copies of said constitution and ritu-
al were "available" to Sardone for her inspection, and that,
at least according to Ferla, a good portion of practically
every union meeting was taken up with Ferla's numerous
reminders to all present that said constitution and ritual
required members to pay their dues whether by checkoff
when working or by cash when incapacitated .6 The fact is
that admittedly Respondent failed to communicate with
Sardone at any time after her accident until the afternoon
of May 22. Hence Respondent failed to notify Sardone of
the imminence of her becoming suspended or of losing her
union membership. In fact Ferla in May 1972, either just
before or dust after her suspension from membership, if in
fact she was actually suspended by Respondent, failed to
return two telephone calls from Sardone which his office
had promised that Ferla would do. Good business practices,
if not the book, would require that such promises be kept.
If kept, such returned calls might well have prevented the
present situation.
By the book Sardone became a suspended member on
May 1, 1971. Neither Sardone nor Robroy were so notified.
The suspension, if any, remained a secret to all concerned
until the afternoon of May 22, 1972. In this connection it
is interesting to note that so far as Robroy was concerned,
Sardone remained an employee at the time of her return to
work on May 22 because it immediately returned her to her
old position as P.B. leader which she held at the time of her
accident.
Furthermore Sardone's dues have been checked off each
month since her employment began in 1965. In her physical
condition after her accident Sardone could well have failed
to recall, even if interested in that matter under the then
existing conditions, the necessity, if such existed, of paying
her dues in cash in lieu of the checkoff while she was not
working. The evidence here showed that the steward would
on occasion call an employee's attention to any existing
deficiencies in his dues payments if and when the steward
might see that delinquent employee in the plant. However
the Union provided no such service for an injured employee
who was unable to appear at the plant. Of course Ferla's
6 The trouble with this last was that Steward Alston could not recall if
Sardone had attended any union meeting since 1969
SHEET METAL WORKERS , LOCAL 12 29
book provided for no such service so the incapacitated em-
ployee received none.
Finally Ferla's decision that Sardone had lost her seniori-
ty rights due to the nonpayment of her dues is in direct
contravention of article XIII, "Security," of the collective-
bargaining agreement which fails to provide for any such
loss of seniority under the conditions of Sardone' s case. In
fact, so far as Robroy was concerned, Sardone was still an
employee and a P.B. leader on the morning of May 22, 1972.
Hence it is apparent that Respondent caused Robroy to
discriminate against Sardone by removing her seniority
based upon a union-security clause fair on its face but illegal
in practice and upon a checkoff clause which was illegal on
its face.
This last is so even if we assume that Sardone was in fact
hired as a new employee at the Union's request on May 22.
Under the checkoff provision of the contract she still lost
her statutory 30 days "free ride."
Last but not least it is interesting to note that Ferla's
alleged strict adherence to the book was such that he had
no objections to Sardone's lost P.B. leader's position being
filled by another without the bidding for that position re-
quired by article XIII, section 3 of the collective-bargaining
agreement.
So it is that none of the books Ferla purported to go by
provided Respondent with any defense to the discrimina-
tion which Respondent caused Robroy to inflict upon Mary
Sardone on May 22, 1972. By causing such discrimination
against Mary Sardone Respondent thereby violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) 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 connection with the operations of Rob-
roy described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent Union caused the Com-
pany to discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Mary Sardone on May 22, 1972, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, I will recommend that Respon-
dent Union notify the Company in writing with a copy to
Sardone that it has no objections to the employment of
Mary Sardone in her former position of P.B. leader and
recommend that she be reinstated to that position without
loss of seniority or to some such substantial equivalent posi-
tion as she might be entitled to with her seniority and that
Mary Sardone be employed in such position on the first
shift if she so desires. I will also recommend that Respon-
dent Union make Mary Sardone whole for any loss of pay
or other benefits she may have suffered by reason of the
unlawful discrimination against her by paying to her a sum
of money equal to that which she would have earned to the
date of her reinstatement as a P.B. leader less her interim
earnings and in a manner consistent with Board policy as
set forth in F.W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Because of the type of unfair labor practices engaged in
by Respondent Union, I sense an opposition by Respon-
dent to the policies of the Act in general and I deem it
necessary to order Respondent to cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with the rights guaranteed to em-
ployees in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record herein I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Robroy Industries, Inc., is engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and Robert G. Ferla is
an agent of Respondent Union within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(13) of the Act.
3. By causing Robroy Industries, Inc., to discriminate
against Mary Sardone in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, there-
by unlawfully encouraging membership in Respondent
Union, Respondent Union has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
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:
ORDER'
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is
recommended that Respondent Union, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Robroy Industries,
Inc., to discriminate against employees except to the extent
permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees of the Company in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
legally permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 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
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify the Company that Respondent has no objec-
tions to the employment of Mary Sardone as a P.B. leader
on the first shift and recommends that the Company rein-
state her to her former position as such and furnish Mary
Sardone a copy of such notification to the Company.
(b) Make Mary Sardone whole in the manner set forth in
the section entitled "The Remedy" above.
(c) In the event that Respondent Union has required a
reinstatement or reinitiation fee from Mary Sardone in or-
der to reestablish her goodstanding in the Union, return
such payments to Sardone with interest at 6 percent per
annum.
(d) Post at its office and place of business copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said no-
tice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 6,
8 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 "
shall, after being signed by a representative of Respondent
Union, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily displayed. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Additional copies of said appendix shall be signed by
a representative of Respondent Union and forthwith re-
turned to the Regional Director for Region 6. These notices
shall be posted, Robroy Industries, Inc., willing, at places
where notices to Robroy employees are customarily posted.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision
what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, unless Respondent
Union notifies said Regional Director within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, in writing, that it will
comply with the foregoing Decision, the National Labor
Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent
Union to take the action aforesaid.