Sheldon Pontiac

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 950 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sheldon Pontiac , Inc. d/b/a Sheldon Pontiac and
Amalgamated Local Union 355. Case 22-CA-4589
October 24, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On July 13, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Bernard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting 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
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that various actions on the part of Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. We do not
agree , however, with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by discharging employee Anthony Fan-
na.
The record shows that on August 13, 1971,3 the
same day that the Union first made its recognition
demand, Farina, an early union activist, was dis-
charged for alleged unsatisfactory work performance.
On August -17, the Union filed 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
charges. On August 18, the Union withdrew these
charges when the Respondent signed a recognition
agreement and agreed to reinstate Farina. Farina was
reinstated and returned to work on August 23.
On September 16, the Union filed new 8(a)(1)
and (5) charges which resulted in the issuance of the
original and amended complaint. In the present case
Farina's discharge was not alleged as an unfair labor
practice. The record does not indicate that the Gener-
al Counsel made any attempt to amend the complaint
at the hearing or to litigate the discharge of Farina as
i The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972 -
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C .A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings
At fn. 7 of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, September 15
instead of August 15 is inadvertently reported as the date of the Wage Freeze
Likewise in the first sentence of the "Concluding Findings and Analysis"
section , the word "extrapolated" instead of "set forth " is inadvertently insert-
ed
3 Unless otherwise indicated all dates are in 1971
being an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, we shall
reverse the Administrative Law Judge's finding that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discharging Farina.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Shel-
don Pontiac, Inc., d/b/a Sheldon Pontiac, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively questioning employees concerning
their union sympathies, preparing and circulating an-
tiunion petitions among employees for their signa-
tures, and in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Refusing to continue to grant employee re-
quests for loans made to them in the past as a form
of punishment for their having joined or assisted the
labor organization.
(c) Refusing to bargain with the Amalgamated
Local Union 355 upon request made by the said Un-
ion.
(d) Granting a reduction of employee working
hours without a corresponding reduction in pay or
offering any other inducement in order to influence
the employees' desires or decisions with respect to
Amalgamated Local Union 355, or any other labor
organization. However, nothing herein shall be con-
strued to require the Respondent to rescind or discon-
tinue benefits previously granted.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain with Amalgamated Lo-
cal Union 355 in good faith with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment with the above-named
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by Sheldon Pontiac
at its New Brunswick, New Jersey, location in the
classifications of service, parts, and body em-
ployees, but excluding office clerical and profes-
sional employees, guards, all other employees,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Post at its New Brunswick, New Jersey, fa-
cility copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
199 NLRB No. 148
SHELDON PONTIAC 951
Regional Director for Region 22 in both English and
Spanish, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma-
terial.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
conditions of employment through Amalgam-
ated Local Union 355, or any other representa-
tive of your own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or
coerce you in the exercise of these rights.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members
of Amalgamated Local Union 355.
SHELDON PONTIAC, INC. d/b/a
SHELDON PONTIAC
(Employer)
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which both sides had the opportuni-
ty to present their evidence, a decision has been issued
finding that we violated the law and ordering us to
post this notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as
employees, certain rights, including the right to self-
organization and to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of your own choosing. Accordingly, we
give you these assurances:
WE WILL bargain upon request with Amal-
gamated Local Union 355 in good faith with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment with the above-named Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All our employees employed by Sheldon Pon-
tiac, Inc., d/b/a Sheldon Pontiac at its New
Brunswick location in the classifications of
service, parts, and body employees, but ex-
cluding office clerical and professional em-
ployees, guards, all other employees, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT ask you any questions about
your union membership, sympathies, or activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT take away from you your past
right to request us to make advance loans to you.
WE WILL NOT permit our officers or supervi-
sory employees to interrogate you about your
union activities, sympathies, or activities.
WE WILL respect your rights to self-organiza-
tion, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively about terms and
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Federal Building, 16th Floor, 970
Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Telephone
201-645-2100.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J. SEFF , Trial Examiner: This case, tried be-
fore me at Newark, New Jersey, on April 20-21, 1972, pur-
suant to charges filed on September 16, 1972, on a
complaint and an amended complaint issued on January 19
and March 28, 1972, respectively, presents the following
questions: (1) whether the Respondent discharged Anthony
Farina in violation of Section 8(a)(3)(1) and (5) of the Act
and (2) whether the Respondent uttered threats, induce-
ments to the employees to abandon the Union, or engaged
in other conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
Upon the entire record I and my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses 2 I make the following:
1 The Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the record is hereby
granted and is included at the back of the folder of Respondent 's Exhibits
as T X. Exh. 1
2 The testimony of all witnesses has been considered. In evaluating the
testimony of each witness, demeanor was relied on In addition , inconsisten-
cies and conflicting evidence were considered The absence of a statement
Continued
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE RESPONDENTS BUSINESS
The Respondent, a New Jersey corporation conduct-
ing its business at its office and place of business located at
250 George Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey, where it
engages in the retail sale and service of new and used cars.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint the
Respondent received gross revenue valued in excess of $500,
000. During the same period of time the Company received
autos and parts valued in excess of $50,000 which were
transported to its place of business in interstate commerce
directly from States of the United States other than the State
of New Jersey. Upon these facts, I find, as the Respondent
admits, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Local Union 355, herein called the Un-
ion, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge and Acts of Interference,
Restraint, Coercion, and Refusal to Bargain
in Violation of Section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5)
of the Act.
1. The facts
Sometime in early August 19711 the Union com-
menced its organizational drive among the parts, service,
and body shop employees employed, at the New Brunswick
operation, which is the Company's only facility. Pursuant to
arrangements made between Anthony Farina, one of the
Respondent's employees 4 and Allan Settlow, the Union's
business agent, a meeting was held at the DeLuxe Tavern,
located only a short distance from Respondent's place of
business. Settlow talked about the Union's objectives to the
six employees who attended the meeting. Thereafter all six
employees signed union application-for-membership cards.
Two additional meetings were held on August 10 and 12 at
which three additional employees in the bargaining unit
also signed union cards. Armed with these signed authoriza-
tion cards, Settlow came to Respondent's office and advised
of resolution of a conflict in specific testimony, or of an analysis of such
testimony , does not mean that such did not occur. See Bishop and Malco, Inc.,
d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161. Further , to the extent that a witness
is credited only in part, it is done upon the evidentiary rule that it is not
uncommon "to believe some and not all of a witness' testimony." N.L R.B.
v Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F 2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2).
3 All events took place in 1971 unless otherwise indicated.
4 Farina, who was discharged on August 13, had a charge of unfair labor
practices filed on his behalf by the Union Later, as will be described infra,
the Union withdrew its charge as part of the quid pro quo of Shiffman's
agreement to sign a recognition agreement recognizing the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the following unit
All employees employed by the Respondent at its New Brunswick loca-
tion in the classification of service , parts and body employees, but ex-
cluding office clerical and professional employees , guards , all other
employees , and all supervisors defined in the Act
Company President Sheldon Shiffman that a majority of his
employees had designated the Union as its representative.
Shiffman asked that he be given some time to contact his
attorney. Later on this same day, August 13, the Company
discharged Anthony Farina, a mechanic who had been em-
ployed for approximately 7 months, allegedly because his
work had caused numerous customer complaints and was
therefore unsatisfactory.
2. Alleged 8(a)(1) interference,
restraint, and coercion
On August 16 all employees were requested to assem-
ble in Schiffman's office by Service Manager MacMillan.
Prior to this meeting MacMillan approached several em-
ployees in the shop and asked, "What's this I hear about you
guys starting a union?" During the meeting which took
place on working time and consumed about 30 minutes,
Schiffman asked why the men wanted a union. Schiffman
went on to say that he did not think the Union would do
them any good at that time. Furthermore during the course
of the meeting (which was an unusual event because no such
previous meetings had been made by the Company with its
employees) Schiffman also made certain other remarks. He
said that he understood there was some union activity in
progress but that he did not think "the Union would do the
men any good at this time ....
Schiffman then asked the men what they wanted. The
men mentioned a number of things such as shorter working
hours, days off in case of illness, and additional holidays.
At this point in time the service men worked a 45-hour
week. In response to this request Schiffman offered to re-
duce their work week from 45 hours to 40 hours at the same
amount of pay. He further said he would make an investiga-
tion into the subject of Blue Cross and Blue Shield..
The men met again with Settlow on August 16 after
their meeting with Schiffman. Among other things it was
reported to Settlow that Schiffman was trying to wean the
men away from the Union. On the next day, August 17,
Settlow filed a charge with the NLRB, Case 22-CA-4566,
alleging that Farina had been discriminatorily discharged
and that Respondent had interfered with the rights of the
workers by offering them benefits. This offer appeared to
have been made for the express purpose of undermining the
Union.
Thereafter, on August 18, Settlow returned to the
Company's place of business and met with the service em-
ployees. At this juncture Settlow, accompanied by all these
employees except for Edward Ferguson, went into the
showroom. Settlow told General Manager Peter Kravec
that he wanted to see Schiffman. Schiffman was not in at
this time. Kravec told the men to return to work but they
refused and instead insisted on waiting to see, Schiffman.
Settlow spoke to Schiffman on the phone and told him to
come down to the office immediately. Upon his arrival
about 11 a.m., Settlow, one of the mechanics named Bal-
trop, and Kravec went into Schiffman's private office.
There Settlow presented Schiffman with the nine Union
cards signed by the men. Schiffman looked over the cards
and kept the duplicate copies.' Settlow stated that, as could
5 These cards were duplicate copies. The cards were prepared in such a way
SHELDON PONTIAC
be seen by a quick perusal of the authorization cards, con-
siderably more than a majority of the employees by having
signed the cards had designated the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining agent. Settlow then asked Schiffman to sign
a recognition agreement with the Union. By this time Schiff-
man had become aware of a letter communication from the
Board that the Union had filed unfair labor practices alleg-
ing, inter alia, that the Respondent had discriminatorily
discharged Farina. After some discussion Schiffman finally
agreed to and did sign the recognition agreement in ex-
change for the Union's agreement to drop the Farina
charge.
Schiffman then signed the agreement which recited
that he was satisfied with the Union's proof of majority
representation, recognized the Union as the exclusive agent
for Respondent's employees under the classifications of
"service, parts and body." Carrying out its pledge Settlow
dictated and signed a letter addressed to the Regional Di-
rector of the NLRB requesting permission to withdraw the
unfair labor practice charge. On the same day Settlow then
went in person to the Board's office and there executed a
formal withdrawal of the charge. Farina was reinstated and
returned to work on Monday, August 23.
During the course of the meeting between Settlow and
Schiffman on August 18 Settlow told Schiffman that follow-
ing his (Schiffman's) recognition of the Union negotiations
would take place with the end in view of the parties reaching
an agreement on a contract. An appointment was made for
a subsequent meeting scheduled to take place on August 27
to discuss the terms of the union contract. Shortly after the
above events took place, more precisely on August 19, Peter
Kravec, the general manager, spoke to 4 or 5 of the service
employees who were gathered together in a group and asked
them why they wanted a union. The workers talked about
job security and other benefits. Kravec then asked them to
give him a list of their demands and assured them that
something could be worked out. This event is a further
example of Respondent's continuing efforts to undermine
the Union.
On the same day, August 19, Edward Ferguson, a me-
chanic and a cousin of one of the service managers, ap-
proached Walton MacMillan the other service manager,
and said that he thought the men would rather stick to the
original agreement 6 than have the Union. MacMillan said
he was of the same opinion and he asked Ferguson to find
out how the men felt about the situation. Ferguson did as
he was instructed and reported back to MacMillan. This
conversation took place at the service desk during working
hours. Ferguson added, "I said to Mac, `I think some of the
fellows are getting cold feet. And I think they would rather
stick with their original agreement [with Schiffman] than
have the Union."' The record continues:
Q. Well, how had he discovered the attitudes? Had
he asked anybody?
s s s » 11
that they are signed in duplicate and the bottom parts are located below a
perforation line. Respondent produced these cards at the hearing.
6 This reference was to the benefits Schiffman had offered to the men on
August 16 if the workers would desert Local 355.
953
A. He has contact with all the mechanics and other
employees.
Q. Well, did you hear that he had asked other,
employees how they felt about the union at that time?
s • s
A. He said he thought they were ready to drop it.
Q. Yes. Did he ask you to find out from the men
what their attitudes were?
A. I told him I would find out.
Q. Well, didn't he say to you, "Go find out from
the men further how they feel?"
A. Yes. I think that would be fairly accurate.
D
Q. Isn't it true, sir, that Mr. Schiffman called that
second meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, at this meeting did Mr. Schiffman say he
really didn't think the union would do you any good?
A. Yes.
Q. And didn't he also say that he .felt that the
union would hurt him?
A. I believe so.
Q. And didn't he also say at that meeting that he
had also been pretty fair with the fellows and had given
them loans when they needed it?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't he also say that he wasn't a hard boss
and didn't complain when anybody made mistakes?
A. Yes.
Q. And didn't he say that he couldn't be so liberal
in his dealings if you men were going to be so hard on
him?
A. _Yes.
The above questions have been excerpted from the
testimony of Edward Ferguson who was opposed to the
Union and, after initially signing a union authorization
card, manifested his hostility to the Union and friendly
feelings for the management.
Schiffman, in this same meeting, told his employees
that "he had made a deal" with them on August 16 and
asked "why [they] crossed him." The 40-hour week at the
same pay previously paid for a 45-hour week was put in
effect the week of August 23. About a day or two before
August 27, Schiffman called Settlow; he later cancelled the
appointment for August 27 and later made a new appoint-
ment for September 3. On this latter date Schiffman and
Settlow met alone at the Spinning Wheel diner. Settlow tried
to talk about a contract but Schiffman refused to discuss
this subject. On September 16, Settlow appeared at
Respondent's office. Schiffman was not in. Settlow left a
proposed noneconomic contract I on Schiffman's desk. As
Settlow was about to leave, Schiffman ordered him out of
the office.
7 The wage freeze declared by President Nixon on September 15 was then
in effect
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Respondent's supervisor circulates
an antiunion petition in which the
employees resign from the Union
The Union's brief, in this connection, then recites the
following:
On September 21, in apparent reaction to receipt of
notice of the charge [the Union 's unfair labor practice
charge] Schiffman directed General Manager Peter
Kravec "to get the men's signature in a petition form
that they did not want the union." Such a petition was
prepared and Kravec, during working hours , solicited
the signatures of employees . One of the men, Manley,
when approached to sign, asked Kravec, "What hap-
pens if I don't sign it?" Kravec "just looked at me and
smiled." Manley signed. The petition was signed by 8
service employees.
4. Respondent 's defense
Respondent does not deny that Settlow presented un-
ion designation cards to Schiffman signed by a majority of
its service employees. The Company further admitted in its
answer to the allegations in paragraph 9 of the complaint
that the "service, parts and body employees constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining."
By the same token it was not denied that Respondent's
service manager , MacMillan , attempted to find out through
Edward Ferguson whether the men still wanted to be repre-
sented by Local 355 on August 19. Similarly General Man-
ager Kravec was not called to testify concerning his efforts
to deal with the men by bypassing the Union. Nor was it
denied that Kravec personally solicited the men to sign a
petition disavowing their desire to remain in the Union. It
is especially significant that neither MacMillan nor Kravec
were called upon by the Respondent to give testimony in the
instant case. The Company's failure to call the principal
actors in the Respondent's antiunion activities gives rise to
the unmistakable inference that if they had testified their
testimony would have been adverse to the Company.
Finally although Company President Schiffman was
on the witness stand his recital of the events complained of
was evasive, contradictory, and confused. He was an utterly
incredible witness. I did not put any credence in his testimo-
ny, while, on the other hand, the General Counsel's witness-
es impressed me on the whole as believable, forthright, and
truthful. I credit their testimony and discredit the story
concocted by the Respondent.
Respondent , in its brief, admits that Kravec prepared
and sent a statement around to the employees to ask them
if they wanted to sign the withdrawal from the union peti-
tion. It concludes with the terse statement that "Rowell [one
of the Company's employees] testified he knew what he was
signing; that he expressed his opinion that he did not want
the Union and all the men in the shop, decided not to have
the Union.
Somewhat lamely the brief of Respondent states that
the employees requested a meeting with Schiffman to con-
vey to him the substance of their talks among themselves.
Schiffman , according to Respondent's counsel , agreed to
the 40-hour week which he had already decided to institute:
when the new auto models came out he had predetermined
to cut the work week to 40 hours meanwhile continuing to
pay his employees the same rate of pay they were receiving
for a 45-hour week. This argument is specious and contrary
to the weight of the substantial evidence in the record as a
whole.
Finally, Respondent argues that while it is not denied
that Schiffman signed the recognition agreement this act on
his part came about under duress because he was faced with
a work stoppage. The only basis upon which the Union
agreed to send the men back to work from their stoppage
was if they returned to their jobs and if the Company would
reinstate Farina to the job he occupied before he became
identified to them as one of the leading union protagonists.
This argument has no substance and does not accord with
present day industrial realities. It is naive to expect credence
to be given to such an explanation. In present day industrial
life many companies sign contracts with labor unions every
day under the pressure of threatened or actual strikes.
Concluding Findings and Analysis
As has been already extrapolated in detail under sec-
tion III of the instant decision, supra, Respondent, through
its president, Sheldon Schiffman, its manager, Peter Kravec,
and its foreman, MacMillan, interrogated its employees as
to their membership in Amalgamated Local Union 355
and/or their sympathies with any labor union. Respondent
has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so find.
It should be noted that the Company failed to have its
supervisors Kravec or MacMillan testify at the hearing.
These facts give rise to the inference that if such testimony
had been elicited it would have been adverse to Respon-
dent . See International Union, United Automobile Workers v.
N.L.R.B., 459 F.2d 1329, and the cases cited therein.
Although Respondent discharged Anthony Farina, a
conspicuous union adherent , in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, which I so find , no reinstatement is required to
remedy this violation because Farina was reinstated within
a short time after his discharge. He is, however, entitled to
backpay for the short time he was unlawfully kept off his
job in violation of the Act which I also find. This matter
should be determined in the compliance phase of this case.
It is hornbook law that when Respondent threatened to
discontinue making loans to its employees unless they repu-
diated the union, this fact too constitutes a clear violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. When this situation is coupled
with Schiffman's promise to reduce the work week from 45
hours to 40 hours at the same rate of pay the men were
earning for working a 45-hour week if they relinquished
their membership in the Union, this act on the part of the
Company's president, Schiffman, represents an unlawful
promise of a benefit. I so find.
I will not burden the record by reiterating the material
concerning the Respondent's equally clear violation in its
refusal to bargain with the Union as is set forth in extenso,
supra, under section III of this Decision. Such violation of
Section 8(a)(5) requires the usual remedy of an order to
bargain which I hereby recommend. In this connection at-
tention should be called to the curious allegation , if indeed
the prayer for relief which appears as a separate paragraph
SHELDON PONTIAC 955
after the 21st allegation in the complaint can be so charac-
terized, and I hereby deny this request in the complaint. I
know of no adjudicated case which defers the imposition of
an order to bargain on the ground that another Trial Exam-
iner has found that Local 355 has been company dominat-
ed. Until such time as the Board has passed on this case,
Russell Motors, Cases 22-CA-2136 and 22-CB-920, I am
not bound to follow the decision of such Trial Examiner. I
decline to do so in the instant case.
With respect to that aspect of the complaint which
concerns itself with the alleged illegality of soliciting em-
ployees to repudiate a union which has been recognized by
the Employer by its having executed a recognition agree-
ment, attention is called to the recent case decided by the
Board, General Motors Acceptance Corporation and Congre-
so De Uniones Industriales De Puerto Rico, reported in 196
NLRB No. 13 where the Board held:
we conclude that Respondent's attempts to eliminate
the Union by ... coercively soliciting employees to sign
a letter repudiating the Union, interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the free exercise of
their Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Anthony Farina because of his activ-
ities on behalf of the charging union, Farina was discrim-
inated against in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. He
was shortly thereafter reinstated but is entitled to backpay
for the short period he was kept out of employment on his
regular job and he is entitled to reimbursement for his loss
of wages.
2. By coercively questioning employees concerning
their union sympathies, by circulating through one of its
managers an antiunion petition purporting to repudiate the
Union, and by shortening the work week at the same time
as the employees were paid the regular wage earned for 45
hours of work; by threatening to discontinue a past practice
of making loans to employees if they persisted in their mem-
bership in the Union; by this act Respondent promised and
did grant a benefit in exchange for their repudiation of the
Union the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
By also attempting to cancel a recognition agreement and
refusing to bargain with the Union the Company also viola-
ted Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices, my Recommended Order will direct
that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
I have found that the Respondent discharged Anthony
Farina in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. To
remedy this unlawful conduct my recommended Order will
direct that Respondent make him whole for his losses result-
ing from the discrimination against him. Respondent shall
pay him the sum of money he would have earned from the
date of his discharge to the date of his reinstatement which
has already taken place, less his net interim earnings. Back-
pay shall be computed on the basis of the actual work time
Farina lost without interest since the amount owed to him
for interest is de minimus.
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:
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]