Star-Lite Electronics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1822 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in the Lincoln building include sales, service, and office
departments, and are substantially greater in number than the employ-
ees sought by the Petitioner. Furthermore, all the requested employ-
ees do not have common supervision and some of them are not super-
vised separately from other nonwarehouse employees. Upon the
foregoing and the entire record in this case, we find that the employees
sought lack the cohesiveness and homogeneity necessary for them to
constitute an appropriate warehouse units Accordingly, we shall dis-
miss the instant petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
The Wm. H. Block Company, 152 NLRB 594 ; Scars, Roebuck & Co., 149 NLRB 1525.
Star-Lite Electronics Corp . and Local 431, International Union of
Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers , AFL-CIO and Ware-
house & Novelty Employees Local 110, International Leather
Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Party to
the Contract
Warehouse & Novelty Employees Local 110 , International
Leather Goods , Plastics & Novelty Workers Union , AFL-CIO
and Local 431, International Union of Electrical , Radio & Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO and Star-Lite Electronics Corp.,
Party to the Contract . Cases Nos. 2-CA-10391 and 2-CB-4162.
September 30, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 13, 1965, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent Company and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
154 NLRB No. 150.
STAR-LITE ELECTRONICS CORP. 1823
the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. Respondent Star-Lite Electronics Corp., New York, New York,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Giving any force or effect to the collective-bargaining agree-
ment executed with Warehouse & Novelty Employees Local 110, Inter-
national Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, on October 15, 1964, or to any modification, extension, renewal,
or supplement thereto, provided, however, that nothing herein shall
require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority,
or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees which
has been established in the performance of this agreement, or to preju-
dice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder.
(b) Extending or continuing recognition to said Local 110 as the
bargaining representative of its employees.
(c) Assisting or supporting Local 110, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by conditioning hire or tenure of employment upon membership
in said Local 110, or any other labor organization which does not rep-
resent a majority of its employees and unless said conditions meet the
requirements of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
(d) Assisting or supporting said Local 110 or any other labor
organization by permitting it to hold meetings on company time and
company premises and by soliciting, through its officers and agents,
its employees to join said Local 110 or any other labor organization.
(e) Assisting said Local 110 by collecting union dues from employ-
ees and transmitting said dues to Local 110 or any other labor organi-
zation which does not represent a majority of its employees and which
does not have a lawful collective-bargaining contract with Star-Lite
in accordance with the provisions of Section 302 of the Act.
(f) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
1 In adopting the Trial Examiner's Decision , we exclude and find it unnecessary to con-
sider the Trial Examiner 's irrelevant comments in footnote 14.
2 The second paragraph of the Trial Examiner 's Remedy is modified , in accordance with
Isis Plumbing h Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, so as to allow 6 percent interest on all dues
and fees unlawfully exacted and retained. Such interest shall be computed in the manner
set forth in Seafarers International Union of North America, Great Lakes District, AFL_
010, 138 NLRB 1142.
1824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment with Local 431, International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees of Respondent Star-Lite, at its New York place of
business, exclusive of office clerical employees, salesmen, watchmen,
and guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section T.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Warehouse &
Novelty Employees Local 110, International Leather Goods, Plastics
& Novelty Workers Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
Respondent Company concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of
employment, unless and until the Board shall certify said labor orga-
nization as such representative.
(b) Reimburse jointly and severally with Local 110, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the due date thereof
until paid, each of its present and former employees for all initiation
fees, dues, and other moneys, if any, exacted pursuant to the terms of
the union-security agreement executed by Respondent Company on
October 15, 1964, or the checkoff authorizations executed by said
employees in favor of Warehouse & Novelty Employees Local 110,
International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers Unions,
AFL-CIO, in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision entitled "The Remedy," as amended herein.
(c) Upon request, bargain with Local 431, International Union of
Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining
representative of its employees in the unit found appropriate herein,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(d) Post at its plant in New York, New York, copies, in English
and Spanish, of the attached notice marked "Appendix A," and, if
willing, copies of the notice marked "Appendix B." 3 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 2, shall,
after being duly signed by the Company's representative, be posted by
the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
$ In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
STAR-LITE ELECTRONICS CORP. 1825
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu-
rity payment records , timecards , personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of reimbursement
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, within 10 days from
the receipt of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.
B. Respondent, Warehouse & Novelty Employees Local 110, Inter-
national Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Claiming to be the authorized bargaining representative of the
employees of Respondent Company.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent Company, its offi-
cers , agents, successors , and assigns , to discriminate against employees
or prospective employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act,
as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
(c) Enforcing or in any way requesting Star-Lite Electronics Corp.
to enforce or agree to the terms of its contract with Star-Lite Elec-
tronics Corp. dated October 15, 1964.
(d) In any other manner restraining or coercing the employees of
Star-Lite Electronics Corp. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Reimburse, jointly and severally with Star-Lite, each of Star-
Lite's present or former employees for all initiation fees , dues, and
other assessments , if any, collected or deducted by Star-Lite from
moneys due said employees pursuant to its collective -bargaining con-
tract with Local 110 or pursuant to any other arrangement with Local
110 or pursuant to any checkoff authorization executed between said
employees and in favor of Local 110 , in the manner set forth in the
section of the Trial Examiner 's Decision entitled "The Remedy," as
amended herein.
(b) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in New York,
New York, copies, in English and Spanish, of the attached notice
206-446-66-vol, 154-116
1826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 2, shall, after being duly signed by the
Union's representative, be posted by the Union immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Copies of said notice shall be mailed to Star-Lite Electronics
Corp., for posting, if willing, at its place of business.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within
10 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our collective-bargaining
agreement dated October 15, 1964, with Warehouse & Novelty
Employees Local 110, International Leather Goods, Plastics &
Novelty Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from Ware-
house & Novelty Employees Local 110, International Leather
Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers Union, AFL-CIO, as the
collective-bargainng representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of dealing with-Respondent Company concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other terms and conditions of employment, unless and until the
Board shall certify said labor organization as such representative.
WE WILL NOT assist or support said Local 110, or any other labor
organization, by making membership in said labor organization
a condition of employment unless said labor organization repre-
sents a majority of our employees and said requirement is in accord
with Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT assist or support Local 110 or any other labor
organization by permitting it to hold membership meetings with
our employees on company time and premises.
WE WILL NOT assist or support Local 110 by soliciting, through
our officers or agents, membership in said labor organization.
STAR-LITE ELECTRONICS CORP. 1827
WE WILL NOT assist or support said Local 110 by collecting or
deducting union dues from moneys due our employees and trans-
mitting said dues to Local 110 or any other labor organization
which does not represent a majority of our employees and which
does not have a lawful collective-bargaining contract with Star-
Lite in accordance with the provisions of Section 302 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 431,
International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment. The appropriate unit is:
All employees of Star-Lite employed at its New York place
of business, exclusive of office-clerical employees, salesmen,
watchmen and guards, and all supervisory employees, as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse, jointly and severally with Local 110, with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the due
date thereof until paid, each of our present or former employees
for all initiation fees, dues, and any other assessments, if any, col-
lected or deducted from moneys due said employees pursuant to
our collective-bargaining contract with Local 110 or pursuant to
any other arrangement with Local 110 or pursuant to any check-
off authorization cards executed by our employees in favor of
Local 110.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of the above-named unions or any
other labor organizations, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
STAR-LITE ELECTRONICS CORP.,
Employer.
Dated--- ------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
1828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue,
New York, New York, Telephone No. 751-5500.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , we hereby notify our members that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Respondent Company,
its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, to discriminate against
employees or prospective employees in violation of Section 8(a)
(3), of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT enforce or request Star-Lite Electronics Corp. to
enforce or agree to the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement
between the undersigned labor organization and Star-Lite Elec-
tronics Corp., dated October 15,1964.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce the employees of Star-Lite Electronics Corp. in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Star-Lite Electronics Corp.,
reimburse, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum
from the due date thereof until paid, each of its present or former
employees for all initiation fees, dues, and any assessments col-
lected or deducted by Star-Lite Electronics Corp., from money due
its employees pursuant to its collective-bargainng agreement with
the undersigned labor organization or pursuant to any other
arrangement with the undersigned labor organization or pursuant
to any checkoff authorization executed by the employees of Star-
Lite Electronics Corp., and in favor of the undersigned labor
organization.
WAREHOUSE & NOVELTY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 110,
INTERNATIONAL LEATHER GOODS, PLASTICS &
NOVELTY WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
STAR-LITE ELECTRONICS CORP . 1829
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New
York, New York, Telephone No. 751-5500.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed November 19, 1964, in Case No. 2-CA-10391 by Local 431,
International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein
Local 431, against Star-Lite Electronics Corp., herein Star-Lite, and upon a charge
filed by Local 431 on November 19, 1964, against Warehouse & Novelty Employees
Local 110, International Leather Goods, Plastics & Novelty Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, herein Local 110 (Star-Lite and Local 110 are collectively referred to as the
Respondents), the General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint alleging that
Star-Lite had violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act and that
Local 110 had violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
The answers of the Respondents denied the commission of unfair labor practices.
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
John F. Furike at New York, New York, on April 12, 13, 14, and 15, 1965. Briefs
were received from the General Counsel and Star-Lite on May 20, 1965.
From my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF STAR-LITE
Star-Lite is engaged in the wholesale sale of tape recorders, radios, and similar
products in New York City and purchases such products in a value in excess of
$50,000 annually from places outside the State of New York. Star-Lite admits and
I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 431 and Local 110 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The evidence
1. The testimony of Limmer
Ralph Limmer , secretary -treasurer of Local 110, was called by the General Counsel
under Rule 43-b of the Rules of Civil Procedure and was the only representative of
either Respondent to testify in this proceeding. Limmer testified that in May of
1964,1 he telephoned Al Dayon, president of Star-Lite , and then went to Dayon's
office where he demanded recognition on behalf of Local 110. Dayon told him that
if he could show him (Dayon ) that Local 110 represented a majority of Star-Lite's
employees he would recognize it. Limmer had 14 signed authorization cards 2 with
him (Limmer estimated the unit at 17 to 20 employees ) and all cards were dated
May 8 .3 The check made by Dayon of these cards is revealed only in the testimony
of Limmer , which reads:
Q. [I3y the TRIAL EXAMINER .] Did he check them against the payroll at this
time?
A. If I recall , he called somebody in, I don't know who it was. And he
showed it to them and he came back and said yes.
i Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1964.
3 One of these cards was signed by Marty Green, admitted to be a supervisor. Three
other cards were signed by Raymond Archer, Benito Gonzales, and Joe Soncino, claimed
by the General Counsel to be supervisors, by Respondent to be employees.
3 The payroll for this period included 27 employees, including Archer, Gonzales, and
Soncino. Excluded were two admitted supervisors (Polce and Green), six clericals, and
two salesmen. Local 110 represented, at the most, 13 of 27 employees assuming that
the cards were valid designations . Such an assumption is rebutted by the testimony of
the employees , infra.
1830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Limmer testified that on the same day on which he made his demand, Star-Lite
signed a recognition agreement with Local 110.4 This agreement, undated, reads:
WAREHOUSE AND NOVELTY EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 110-AFL-CIO,
350 Broadway,
New York 13, N.Y.
Gentlemen. The undersigned, being satisfied that the Union represents a
majority of our workers in the bargaining unit consisting of production, mainte-
nance, warehouse and other employees, except guards and supervisors as defined
in the National Labor Relations Act, hereby recognizes the Union as their
exclusive collective bargaining representative in respect to (but not by way of
limitation) wages, hours of employment, vacations, holidays, welfare plan and
other conditions and we will meet with you to negotiate the contract as soon as
requested by you.
Very truly yours,
(Name of Firm) STAR LITE ELEC CORP
By Al Dayon
Address 37 W 23 St.
NYC
Agreed• Warehouse and Novelty Employees Union
Local 110-AFL-CIO
Signed Jack Adelman, Pres.
Having gained recognition in either May or June, Limmer then did nothing until
October, a rather unusual respite for a designated bargaining agent to afford an
employer. Limmer explained this delay by the fact that Dayon, willing to negotiate
a contract with Local 110, kept "running back and forth to Japan." In October
Limmer learned that Local 431 "was in the picture" and went to its office on
October 14. (Limmer first testified that the date was November 14, but later cor-
rected his error ) There he met James Garry, a business agent for Local 431, told
him he had heard that Garry had an interest in a "shop up the block" (Star-Lite) and
suggested a Board election. According to Limmer, Garry not only refused but told
Limmer he would take that shop and another (Vernitrom) away from him.
The next day, October 15, Local 110 and Star-Lite executed a printed, standard-
form contract (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4) containing a union-security clause
and a dues checkoff clause. There is no evidence that any negotiations preceded the
execution of this contract. Limmer first met with the employees of Star-Lite after
the contract had been signed. The meeting took place on Star-Lite's premises on
October 15 after permission had been secured from Al Dayon to hold the meeting.
At the meeting Limmer read the contract to the employees, the first knowledge they
received of the terms of the contract.
2. The testimony of Charles Folks
Charles Folks, president of Local 431, testified that he initiated an organizing
campaign on behalf of that Local on or about August 16, by passing out leaflets in
front of the plant. He did not pass out leaflets thereafter although he testified that
he made at least one more visit to the plant area in September or October. On
September 25 Local 431 filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board
alleging Star-Lite had discharged three employees because of their membership in
and activity on behalf of Local 431.6 On October 26 Local 431 sent a letter to
Star-Lite requesting bargaining negotiations and offering to prove its majority
status.? It defined the unit as "your production and maintenance employees." No
reply was received to this letter.
4 Respondent Union's Exhibit No. 1.
It was stipulated that Star-Lite complied with the checkoff provision.
O General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6. It was stipulated that a copy of this charge was
served upon Star-Lite on September 30. The charge was withdrawn by Local 431
on December 7.
1 General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 7.
STAR-LITE ELECTRONICS CORP. 183 1
On October 29 Local 431 filed a petition for an election with the National Labor
Relations Board , Case No. 2-RC-13748,8 which defined the appropriate unit as:
Included:
Production and Maintenance / Employees
and shipping and receiving 9
Excluded:
Executives, supervisors , engineers , and office workers
Following the filing of this petition a conference was held at the office of Mr.
Weddington, a Board agent, on November 9. The purpose of the conference was
to arrange a consent election among the employees. (No agreement was reached
and no election was held.) Frank Scheiner and Folks represented Local 431, Elliot
Wales represented Star-Lite and Leon Reich and an unidentified person represented
Local 110 At this meeting Scheiner offered to establish Local 431's majority by
authorization cards and expressed a willingness to negotiate a contract According
to Folks, Scheiner had the cards in his hand and offered them to both Wales and
Reich, both of whom refused the offer.i° The offer to negotiate was refused by
Wales on the ground that Star-Lite already had a contract with Local 110
Folks then testified that he was present at the meeting between Garry and Limmer
at the office of Local 431 on October 14. When Limmer arrived, following his
telephone call to Garry, the three went in the back to the board room where Zim-
mer told them he wanted to talk about Star-Lite and stated he could have had a
contract 3 months ago but the Company had not been ready to negotiate. Limmer
then asked them, according to Folks, "What will you take to get out of the picture"
Folks replied that Local 431 had a majority of the employees at Star-Lite and was
going to stay with them.
3. The testimony of the employees
Eleven employees testified in this proceeding and their testimony is decisive of
the issues in the case.
Washington Carrera testified he signed a card for Local 431 (General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 9-e) about 2 or 3 months after he started working at Star-Lite and that
the date on the card, September 10, was the date he signed. The card was then
mailed to Local 431.
Robert Manicone testified that he worked at Star-Lite from April 1964 until
January 1965, and that he signed an authorization card for Local 431 on Septem-
ber 11. (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9-p.) He testified that he signed a card
for Local 110 in October. The card (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2-0) is dated
May 8, 1964. The card was given to him by Ralph Dweck, vice president of Star-
Lite, while he was working in the receiving department and Dweck told him to sign
it. He did not date the card, but filled out his address, town, and State, telephone,
and social security number and gave it back to Dweck. About 1 month after he
signed the card he attended a meeting of Local 110 on the third floor of Star-Lite
immediately after the lunch hour. All of the employees from the repair and the
shipping and receiving departments attended. Ralph Setton, vice president of Star-
Lite, and two unidentified representatives of Local 110 were present. One of the
representatives of Local 110 did the talking. According to Manicone he had a copy
of the contract in his hand and explained the terms of the contract to the employees.
(Manicone received a $2 weekly increase and his lunch hour was expanded from 45
minutes to 1 hour.)
8 General Counsel ' s Exhibit No. 8.
The words "shipping and receiving" were written in ink and it was indicated that
they were to precede the word "Employees" on the line above . The upper line was
typewritten.
"Introduced into evidence were 25 cards ( General Counsel's Exhibits Nos 9-a through
9-y). Two of these were dated October 27 , the date the letter of recognition would pre-
sumably have been received. The others were dated on or prior to October 26 Four
more were dated between October 27 and the meeting of November 9 (General Counsel's
Exhibits Nos . 10-a through 10-d) and were in Schemer 's possession on that day.
1832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Antonio Cadena testified that he was employed by Star-Lite at the end of July or
early August and worked until the middle of September. He signed a card for
Local 431 on September 9 and saw his cousin Armandao Montalvo sign one. (Gen-
eral Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 9-c and 9-s.)
Fitz H. Dickson, a repairman, testified that he signed a card for Local 431 on
September 17. (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9-h.) He did not sign a card for
Local 110 until 1965.
Alvaro Carrera, a repairman, testified that he signed a card for Local 110 in
October (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 26-g) and shortly thereafter received a
$2 raise. This card is dated May 8, 1964. On October 26 he signed a card for
Local 431 and saw another employee, Edgar Lamoli, sign one 5 days before he
signed. (General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 9-d and 9-o. Exhibit 9-o is dated
September 9 and signed "Edardo Lamoli.") Later Carrera corrected his testimony
and stated the card for Local 110 was signed about 15 days after he signed for Local
431. He signed when asked to by Ralph Dweck during working hours at the plant
Dweck told him it was for the "men who gave us a speech that morning." (Local
110.) Present were Edgar Lamoli and Benito Gonzalez who also signed cards at
Dweck's request.
Carrera attended a meeting on the day he signed his authorization card on the
third floor at which representatives of Local 110 spoke. He later attended a second
meeting of Local 110 on company premises but it is impossible to tell from his
testimony when he was referring to the first meeting and when to the second meeting.
Joseph Santana, an employee, testified that he signed a card for Local 431 on
September 11. (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 9-y.)
Victor Montanez testified that he was laid off by Star-Lite in the middle of Sep-
tember and called back in October together with another employee laid off at the
same time, Rafael Rolon. When they were interviewed at the time of their reem-
ployment Dayon told Setton to give them a union card. Setton got two cards from
his desk drawer, then gave them to Montanez and Rolon who signed them. Mon-
tanez attended a meeting of employees in the middle of November at which two
representatives of Local 110 addressed the employees in the presence of Setton and
Green. They passed out cards for the "boys" to sign and Montanez saw quite a
few of them sign.
Vincent Hramzoff testified that he was employed as a receiving clerk by Star-Lite
from mid-October until January 1965. In November he attended a meeting of
Local 110 held on the third floor of Star-Lite. Two representatives of Local 110
and Setton and Green were present. The employees were told that a contract had
been signed between Star-Lite and Local 110 and that union cards and insurance
cards would be passed out for the employees to sign. Hramzoff signed both cards.11
Oscar Ordonez testified that he attended a meeting of the employees on the prem-
ises at Star-Lite at which Setton and Green were present together with two represent-
atives of Local 110. Ordonez does not understand English and did not understand
what was said at the meeting. Later Ordonez saw Dweck give cards (identi-
fied as similar to General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 2-a through 2-p) to Benito
Gonzalez. Later he saw Gonzalez give cards to two unidentified fellow-workers.12
Raymond Archer testified that he was employed as a repairman for Star-Lite
from July 1961 until January 1965. Archer was given a Local 110 authorization
card "sometime in October" by Dweck. (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2-a.) He
told Dweck he would not sign the card because he could not afford to pay union
dues. Dayon was with Dweck and asked Archer to sign the card because he would
get a $2 raise and could then afford to pay the dues. Archer signed-the rest of
the card had already been filled out when he signed it. (The card is dated 5/8/64.)
Archer could recall excusing men in his department (repair) to attend a meeting of
Local 110 during working hours sometime in November. He did not attend because
someone had to wait on the customers.
Rafael Rolon was employed by Star-Lite in March 1963, laid off in September
1964, reemployed in mid-October and left them in January 1965. He and Montanez
were recalled at the same time and when they reported Dayon told them that since
they had wanted a union (he and Montanez had both signed cards for Local 431)
u Hramzoff's card was not included in the Local 110 cards introduced as General
Council's Exhibits Nos. 2-a through 2-p.
^ A card signed by Ordonez designating Local 431 was in evidence as General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 9-u.
STAR-LITE ELECTRONICS CORP. 1833
he (Dayon) had gotten one for them and Setton gave each of them a card to sign
for Local 110. He signed the card and gave it back to Setton. He was given a $5
raise by Dayon at this time.
B. Conclusions
1. The status of Local 110
The testimony of Limmer is nowhere corroborated by that of other witnesses 13
and is directly contradicted in pertinent parts by witnesses for the General Counsel.
Without hesitation I credit the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses and
discredit Limmer wherever there is conflict. I shall not, however, refer to Lim-
mer's testimony as perjurious.14
Limmer testified that he showed 14 authorization cards signed by employees of
Star-Lite to Dayon in May or June. All cards were dated May 8. Three of these
employees testified at the hearing. Robert Manicone testified that he signed a card
for Local 110 in October when told to do so by Dweck. Alvaro Carrera testified
that he signed for Local 110 when requested to do so by Dweck and that the card
was signed about 15 days after he signed a card for Local 431 (October 26). Archer
signed for Local 110 in October after Dweck told him the $2 pay raise would permit
him to pay his dues. Not a single employee was called by either Star-Lite or Local
110 to establish that the cards were not obtained through the solicitation of officers
of Star-Lite and that any of them were obtained prior to the meeting of the employ-
ees on the premises of Star-Lite in October. Under these circumstances I would
invalidate not only the cards signed by these three employees but in view of the
credited and uncontradicted testimony that Dweck passed out cards of Local 110
after this meeting and induced employees to sign them I would invalidate all cards
submitted by Local 110. There is nothing in this record to establish that Local 110
engaged in any organizational efforts whatsoever at Star-Lite except on the two
occasions when it was assisted by Star-Lite. By such assistance 1 find Star-Lite vio-
lated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.15 Star-Lite further violated the foregoing
section by holding union meetings on company property during working hours and
introducing the Local 110 representatives to the employees at such meetings.16
By granting recognition to and executing the contract of October 15 at a time
when Local 110 did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees" in the
unit described therein Star-Lite violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act and
Local 110 violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act.is
Since the contract required membership in Local 110 as a condition of employ-
ment Star-Lite discriminated against its employees to encourage membership in
Local 110 in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) and Local 110 unlawfully caused
such discrimination in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A).19
ii President Al Dayon, Vice President Ralph Setton and Morris Cohen ( not otherwise
identified ) were iubpenaed by the General Counsel but did not respond.
14 In Fotochrome, Inc., 146 NLRB 1010, the Board reprimanded the Trial Examiner for
commenting on the prevalence of perjury in Board proceedings and in that case in par-
ticular. The Board said ( footnote 1), "It must be remembered that two witnesses may
give different accounts of the same factual situations without committing perjury, be-
cause differences may reasonably be expected when truthful witnesses give their versions
of events in which they are emotionally involved " In Fotochrome perhaps 3 days of
testimony , including the testimony of handwriting experts, was devoted to proving or dis-
proving the authenticity of handwritten initials placed on a contract . A, the representa-
tive of the Union, testified that he had never initialed the contract and that the initials
were forged. B, the president of Respondent, testified that A had initialed the contract
in his presence and at the same time that he ( B) had initialed it. The record in that
case was replete with similar direct contradictions . The characterization of such con-
flicts as merely "different accounts of the same transaction " seems odd.
15 Campco Plastics Company, 142 NLRB 1272 , 1283; Lykes Bros., Inc. of Georgia, 128
NLRB 606.
16 Salmirs Oil Company, 139 NLRB 25.
17 From the testimony in this case the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is
that Local 110 represented none of the employees until after the contract was signed.
18lnternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO ( Bernhard-Altman Texas
Corp .) v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731.
1e Continental Distilling Sales Company, a Division of Publicker Industries, Inc, 145
NLRB 820, 831 , and cases cited.
1834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The bargaining status of Local 431
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit and I find that the appropriate bar-
gaining unit is:
All employees of Respondent Star-Lite employed at its New York place of busi-
ness, exclusive of office-clerical employees , salesmen, watchmen , and guards and all
supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
I find that the letter of October 26 constituted a demand for recognition and for
collective bargaining negotiations and that the failure of Star-Lite to reply to such
demand constituted a refusal. ( At no time did Star-Lite question the appropriate-
ness of the unit.) On October 26 the payroll (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 14)
showed 41 employees , including 4, Sam Gabbey , Raymond Archer , Benito Gon-
zalez and Joseph Soncino , whose supervisory status was disputed . At the time of
this demand Local 431 had in its possession 23 authorization cards signed by
employees of Star-Lite 20 One of these employees, Antonio Cadena , does not appear
on the payroll for that week since he was laid off in September and never returned
to work. Another card signer , Armando Montalvo, does not appear on the payroll.
Computing neither of these card signers Local 431 still had 21 valid designations on
October 26, a majority in a unit of 41 employees including the alleged supervisors.
On the following day two more cards were signed designating Local 431 21 and
between that date and November 6 Local 431 obtained four more signatures. Con-
trary to the contention of Respondents , I find that Local 431 made a second demand
for recognition on November 9 through the request for recognition by Frank
Schemer and his offer to show the 29 cards to counsel for the Respondents , an offer
which was declined. The payroll for the period ending November 6 showed the
same 41 names. At no time did Star-Lite express doubt of the authenticity of the
cards or of Local 431's majority status. Thus on November 9 Local 431 repre-
sented 27 of 41 employees . In making these computations Archer, Gabbey, Gon-
zalez and Soncino have been included in the unit so Local 431 had a majority on
both dates regardless of their supervisory authority.
I therefore find that Respondent Star-Lite, by refusing to bargain with Local 43 t
on October 27 (it is assumed that the letter was not received until that date) and
again on November 9, at which times Local 431 represented a majority of its employ-
ees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining , violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in cei tans
unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It shall be recommended that Respondents Star-Lite and Local 110 jointly and
severally be required to reimburse all employees for all dues deducted fiom their
pay by Star-Lite and transmitted to Local 110 pursuant to the contract dated Octo-
ber 15, 1964, or pursuant to any other arrangement including checkoff authorization
signed by the employees.
It shall also be recommended that the notices required to be posted by Respond-
ents Star-Lite and Local 110 shall be posted in both English and Spanish.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Respondent Star-Lite Electronics Corp. is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondent Warehouse & Novelty Employees Local 110, and Local 431, Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. By entering into and executing a recognition agreement and a contract with
Local 110 at a time when Local 110 did not represent a majority of its employees,
Respondent Star-Lite violated Section 8(a)(2) and ( 1) of the Act.
20 It was stipulated that General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10 , consisting of a total
of 29 signed authorization cards, would be received as having been signed by the in-
dividual whose name appeared thereon and that the date placed on each card was accurate.
21 Employees Morris Cohen and Vincent Hramzoff. The Board holds that "the time as
of which majority is to be determined is the date of receipt of a request for bargaining
rather than the date such request is sent." Rea Construction Company, 137 NLRB 1769.
LOCAL 676, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1835
4. By permitting Local 110 to hold meetings on its premises and by soliciting
membership in Local 110 on its premises during working time among its employees,
Respondent Star-Lite violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. By entering into and executing a collective-bargaining agreement with Local
110 at a time when Local 110 did not represent a majority of its employees, which
required membership in Local 110 as a condition of employment and which further
required the deduction of union dues by Respondent Star-Lite from its employees'
pay, Respondent Star-Lite violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain in good faith with Local 431 at a time when Local 431
represented a majority of its employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining , Respondent Star-Lite violated Section 8 ( a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
7. By entering into and enforcing a recognition agreement and a collective -bargain-
ing contract with Star-Lite at a time when it did not represent a majority of the
employees of Star-Lite, Respondent Local 110 violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the
Act.
8. By entering into . and enforcing a contract with Star-Lice., which required mem-
bership in Local 110 as a condition of employment with Star-Lite and which required
Star-Lite to deduct union dues from the moneys due its employees and transmit such
moneys to Local 110 , Local 110 violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Armstrong Cork
Company. Case No. 4-CD-129. September 30, 1965
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Armstrong
Cork Company, herein called the Employer, alleging that Local 676,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters, had violated
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Leo F. Hannon on May 20, 1965. All parties appeared at the
hearing 1 and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, all parties
filed briefs. The Respondent then filed a motion to strike portions of
the Intervenor's brief on the ground that the Intervenor was belatedly
seeking an additional determination about the work of operating ware-
house trailers which had not been encompassed by the notice of hearing
or placed in issue at the hearing. The Intervenor filed a statement in
opposition to the motion .2
1 Glass Bottle Blowers Association , Local 257 , affiliated with the Glass Bottle Blowers
Association of the United States and Canada, herein called GBBA , intervened and was
represented by counsel at the hearing.
2 We find merit in the Respondent 's motion, which is hereby granted. Accordingly, the
assignment of this work is not being considered in the instant proceeding.,
154 NLRB No. 137.