Superior Micro Film Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 555 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

SUPERIOR MICRO FILM
Superior Micro Film Systems , Inc.' and /or Wilfred
W. Burgart and Jesse Guido, Partners d/b/a B. G.
Management Company and International Union of
District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the
United States and Canada . Case 6-CA-5815
February 1, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On September 19, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
John F. Funke issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
limited cross-exceptions and an answering brief to
Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions, cross-
exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm
the rulings, findings, and conclusions 2 of the Admin-
istrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondents, Superior Micro
Film Systems, Inc., and/or Wilfred W. Burgart and
Jesse Guido, Partners d/b/a B. G. Management
Company, New Kensington, Pa., their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Herein called Superior.
2 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the
threats, which Superior President William G Gartley made to employee
David Smay, violated Sec 8(a)(I) of the Act In so doing, we deem it
unnecessary to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Smay
was utilized by Gartley as a "conduit" to inform other employees that
reprisals would be effected if they chose the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative.
The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently departs from his correct
designation of employee Gary Daugherty as the husband of employee
Marian Daugherty by referring to Gary in the discussion of the
discriminatory discharges as her brother Accordingly, we find in agreement
with the Administrative Law Judge that Gary Daugherty was unlawfully
discharged "because he was Manan 's [husband ] and that the true cause of
[his discharge) was her suspected union activity."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
555
JOHN F. FUNKE , Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding was brought before the National Labor
Relations Board upon:
1. A charge filed January 3, 1972, by International
Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of, the
United States and Canada, herein District 50, against
Superior Micro Film Systems, Inc. and/or Wilfred W.
Burgart and Jesse Guido, Partners d/b/a B . G. Manage-
ment Company , herein Superior and B. G. Management or
jointly as the Respondents , alleging Respondents violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act; an amended charge filed
January 19, 1972, by District 50 against Respondents
alleging violations of Section 8(axl), (3), and (5) of the
Act; a second amended charge filed March 15, 1972, by
District 50 alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act; and a charge filed April 24, 1972, by District 50
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the
Act.
2. A complaint issued by the General Counsel alleging
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1),(3), and (5) of the
Act, dated April 28, 1972.
3. An answer to the complaint filed by Respondents
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices,
dated May 5, 1972.
4. An amendment to the complaint submitted at the
hearing on July 11, 1972, alleging the Respondents en-
gaged in other violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. A hearing held by me at Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania,
on July 11 and 12, 1972.
6. A brief submitted by counsel for the Respondents on
August 25, 1972.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying , I make the
following:
FINDINGS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Superior is a Delaware corporation having its principal
place of business at New Kensington , Pennsylvania, where
it is engaged in the nonretail sale of microfilming. During
the 12-month period immediately preceding the hearing
Respondent sold products valued in excess of $50,000 to
customers located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania.
B. G. Management is a partnership located at New
Kensington , Pennsylvania , where it is engaged in financing
and managing Superior's business.
Superior and B. G. Management constitute a single
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
If. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 50 is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
201 NLRB No. 87
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ISSUES
The issues presented by the pleadings and the evidence
were:
1. Did Respondents on January 3, 1972, threaten their
employees with a reduction in benefits if they selected
District 50 as their bargaining agent in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act?
2. Did Respondents on or about May 1, 1972, grant
their employees a wage increase to dissuade them from
union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act?
3. Did Respondents on December 31, 1971, discharge
Marian Daugherty, Gary Daugherty, and Ellen Gallucci to
discourage union membership in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act?
4. Did Respondents on and after December 30, 1971,
refuse to bargain in good faith with District 50 in a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in
violation of Section 8(5) of the Act?
IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The following persons were stipulated as supervisors of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the
Act:
William G. Gartley, President-Superior
Robert Gartley, Production Manager-Superior
Wilfred W. Burgart, Partner-B. G. Management
Jesse Guido, Partner-B. G. Management
Ralph Anderson, Supervisor-Superior
With respect to the alleged threats made on January 3,
1972,1 David Smay testified that he had been employed by
Superior for about 6 years and that he was also a
stockholder in Superior. On Sunday, January 2, he received
a telephone call from Ellen Gallucci, alleged to be a
discriminatee , telling him the employees were forming a
union and asking him if he wanted to join .2 Smay's
response was negative . She also told Smay that she had
been discharged because she had tried to form a union. A
few hours later Smay called William Gartley to ask him
what he (Gartley) thought about the formation of a union.
Gartley responded that he did not know anything about it.
On the next working day, Monday, January 3, Smay spoke
again with William Gartley who told him that since he was
the oldest employee and a stockholder he should know
what was going on and he was then told by Gartley that
the employees were forming a union and that he (Gartley)
had no objection . He then told Smay , however, that certain
changes would be made if the Union got in , specifically
that the girls would have to lift their own boxes (the boxes
had previously been lifted by any man who happened to be
around); that they would not be able to leave the plant
during lunch hour and that they would have to wait 15
years to get a 3-week vacation instead of 5 years. The next
day Smay reported this conversation with Gartley to the
other employees, "about 15 or 20."
1 When references are made to the months of January , February, and
May it will be understood that the year is 1972, when made to October,
November, and December the year is 1971.
Smay's testimony is not contradicted by that of any
other witness.
With respect to the May I pay increase Betty Wetter
testified that she had been employed by Superior for a
period of 5 years and that on May I she received an
increase in wages of 15 cents per hour . This is the only
testimony to support the allegation of the amendment to
the complaint but the fact that a pay raise was granted at
this time was not denied.
Conclusions
I find that the threat of worsened working conditions as
related to the employees by Smay, as retaliation for their
acceptance of a union , was in direct violation of Section
8(axl). It is true that Smay was not a supervisor within the
meaning of the statute but he was the senior employee and
a stockholder in Superior and as such he could reasonably
be expected to relay Gartley's threats to the other
employees . Since, in fact, he had already made known his
opposition to unionization there could have been no other
reason for Gartley making known his response to union
activity to Smay. Smay did not have to be threatened or
coerced into "loyalty" to Superior. He was utilized by
Gartley as a conduit to make known to other employees
that reprisals would be effected if the employees chose
District 50. Smay had no authority to impose a change in
working conditions of the employees so, whether or not he
quoted Gartley, they could not have misunderstood the
source of his message . I find that by making the threats
testified to by Smay, Respondents violated Section 8(axl)
of the Act.
I find no casual connection between the wage increase
granted Betty Wetter and the organizational campaign of
District 50. It was granted in May, some 5 months after
District 50 had made its demand for recognition and after,
according to this record, all organizational efforts on the
part of District 50 had ceased and District 50 was relying
on its charge to obtain bargaining rights. I would not hold
that the wages of all employees of Superior were frozen
until this case should reach ultimate conclusion in the
absence of any evidence that the wage increase bore some
relation to a determination to frustrate union activity. Here
the nexus is nil. It is recommended that the complaint be
dismissed as to this allegation.
B. The Discharge of the Daughertys and Ellen
Gallucci
1. Their concerted activity and union
organizational efforts
Marian Daugherty , hereafter referred to as Marian,
testified that some time in November she and the other
girls on the day shift (about 20) went to William Gartley's
office to ask for a raise . She was the spokesman and when
she asked for the raise was told by Gartley that it was
impossible .3 Another girl (she thought it was Gallucci)
2 Gallucci confirmed that she spoke to Smay on that day.
3 Robert Gartley testified that Marian protested to him that the newly
hired employees were receiving $ 1.65 per hour while the girls who had been
'SUPERIOR MICRO FILM 557
asked about hospitalization and Marian asked him about
sick leave. Gartley told her there was no way to grant that.
As to hospitalization Gartley told them there was no way
to give them that because if he did he would have to pay
for hospitalization for the girls who did not want it as well
as for those who did.4 Another employee requested the
installation of a water cooler (the girls had to use the
faucets in the restrooms) and Gartley told them he would
try to get one. This testimony was corroborated in full by
Gallucci who added that she and Marian did most of the
talking on behalf of the girls and that prior to this both she
and Marian had been requested by other girls to ask for
leave on their behalf because "we weren't afraid of them."
Union activity was initiated at a "Christmas party" held
at the home of one of the employees on December 28. It
was the unanimous opinion of the girls attending, accord-
ing to the testimony of Marian and Gallucci, that a union
was needed. Marian called a representative of District 50
named Bill Ross who told her the first thing to do was to
get a majority of the employees to sign authorization cards.
The next day Gallucci's husband picked up the cards and
delivered them to Marian, Gallucci, and two other
employees at lunchbreak. Signatures were obtained, from
some 20 employees either at the plant or at their homes on
that day.5 (Marian admitted that the signatures obtained at
the plant were obtained surreptitiously. That night the
cards were delivered to Ross.
This terminated the union activity of Marian and
Gallucci for after the close of the workday on December 30
they were fired.
John Schneider, Regional Director for District 50,
testified that on December 30 he called Superior and
subsequently spoke to William Gartley late in the after-
noon of that day, told him District 50 represented a
majority of the employees, offered to prove a majority by
the cards, and demanded recognition. Gartley's reply was
that he would have to see his lawyer and that he would
have to contact him on a later date. Gartley's testimony
corroborates Schneider's as to this call.
2. The racial incidents
The circumstances under which Marian and Gallucci
were terminated and the reason given were substantially
identical. Marian was employed by Superior in October
1967, and at the time of her discharge was operating a
camera which microfilmed hospital records. Gallucci had
been employed for over 5 years and worked at all jobs.
With respect to Gallucci, Robert Gartley testified that she
was a very good worker and conscientious to the extent
that shortly after the night shift started working in October
she complained, in profane language, about the quality of
their work and threatened to quit. Gartley convinced her
not to quit and testified that from that date to the date of
her discharge she did "a very good job." As to Marian,
hired employees were receiving S 1.65 per hour while the girls who had been
there 5 and 6 years were getting only $ 1.75 and $185 per hour.
4 The meaning of this statement was never made clear. It is hard to
conceive that any employee would not want hospitalization benefits.
5 G C. Exhs. 3 through 22. The authenticity of these cards was not
attacked.
6 The night shift had consisted of four operators all of whom were white.
Gartley testified that she did very good work on the
camera but that she too complained of the work of the girls
on the night shift. The nub of this case lies with the
institution of the night shift and its impact on the
employer-employee relations as well as organizational
efforts by the employees.
William Gartley testified that Superior had been in
financial difficulties since at least April 1971 and that B. G.
Management was brought in to provide fresh working
capital and it accordingly assumed control over Superior's
policies. Whether through altruism or the advantage of
having the Federal Government subsidize a part of its
payroll, or both, Superior entered into a contract with an
agency designated by Gartley as EDA to employ and train
disadvantaged persons in its operations. (EDA paid one-
half their wages.) Seven girls were hired, all of whom were
Black, and were placed on the night shift.6 It was the job of
the night shift to prepare work and materials for the day-
shift operators. While the former night-shift operators
remained for some time to help train the new girls it was
natural that there should be complaints from the day
operators about the quality of their performance at first.
William Gartley stated that before the Black girls were
employed he held a meeting with his employees, told them
that he was for the first time employing Blacks and asked
for their cooperation. He also told them that anyone who
was unwilling to cooperate could leave. Robert Gartley
testified that after this meeting Marian told him she was
not going to use the same restroom as the Blacks, a remark
which Marian admitted making, adding that other girls
had expressed the same feeling.? This issue did not reach
serious proportions until the week following Christmas
when, due to vacations, the night-shift employees were
transferred to work with the day-shift employees, only five
of whom were working.
The friction started, according to Marian and Gallucci,
over the shop radio which provided music during the
working periods. The stations and programs had been
selected to suit the taste of the white employees and had
been tuned in at a moderate pitch. When they reported for
work on December 27, the radio was on, according to
Marian, "full blast" and was tuned in on WAMO,
described as a "soul" station. One of the day-shift
employees turned it down and from then on it was turned
from station to station and the volume up and down. By
the time Robert Gartley came to work at 8 o'clock one of
the girls was crying and Marian described the scene as a
"crazy house." The radio was then turned off by Anderson.
The next day, however, the night-shift employees brought
in a tape recorder and there were complaints from the day
shift, including Marian, about this. Since there was a rule
against having tape recorders Anderson shut it off. Marian
also testified that on this day, Tuesday, the Black group
When the new girls were hired Ralph Anderson was hired to supervise them.
7 Gartley stated Marian's remark was expressed in more vulgar and
colloquial language . He also testified that his response was to request
Manan to get along with the Black employees or to use the restroom next
door or to "hold it until you get home." He did not appear, while testifying,
to regard the remark as a serious incident affecting morale in the plant, at
least at that time.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threatened to stab them (the white girls) and get them after
work, mentioning Black power and possession of a guns
Identified as participating in these threats were Sheila Bell,
Debbie Butler, and Connie Booker. Four of the white
employees, including Manan and Gallucci, went to the
office and complained to William Gartley. Gartley talked
to them and then called the Black employees in and talked
to them. When the Black employees came out of the office
the threats were repeated in the presence of Anderson who
ignored them.9
No incidents occurred on Wednesday but on Thursday,
the last workday of the week (Friday was observed as the
New Year holiday) the timeclock incident took place. The
employees were, naturally, anxious to leave as quickly as
possible and about 3:15 (quitting time was 3:30) Marian
and Rochelle Ansilo want to the time machine to get their
work report folders and saw Sheila Bell's card already in
the machine. Ansilo took the card out of the machine and
put it back in the card slot. Bell then came up, "got mad
and wanted to know who took her card" and was told by
Robert Gartley that he had taken it since it was not
supposed to be in the machine until 3:30. At 3:30 Marian
was first in line with Ansilo next and there was a general
pushing and shoving. A complaint to Robert Gartley
brought the reply that on Monday the plant would return
to two shifts.
Gallucci testified that, regarding the tape recorder, she
protested to Anderson about its use and that, so far as she
knew, he was the one who turned it off. She also testified
that on that day, Tuesday, she and the other day-shift girls
complained to William Gartley about the radio incident,
about the tape recorder, and the threats made by the Black
girls. Gartley called Robert Gartley and Anderson in and
asked them about the threats and they denied having heard
them. Later she, Marian, Ansilo, and Vi Ladik were having
their coffeebreak and the Blacks again threatened them,
mentioning Black power, a gun, and a knife. She reported
this to Anderson who walked back into his office.10
Deborah Windsor, the only Black employee called as a
witness,li testified that while tension existed it was not
until the shifts were combined on December 27 that it
became serious. On that morning one of the night-shift
girls turned on the radio and since it had last been played
on Friday night it was still on WAMO and the volume was
up. When the station was identified a white girl changed
the station and turned down the volume. Windsor agreed
that the station and volume were changed until the place
was in an "uproar" and that when William Gartley came in
the white girls went into see him and later Anderson turned
the radio off. The next day it was gone. As to the timeclock
incident her testimony does not vary in substance from
that of Marian and Gallucci. She testified to a general lack
of rapport between the white and Black girls and
characterized Marian as being particularly open in her
facial expressions of contempt.
N Marian testified that the Black employees specifically threatened to
"drag my ass off Fifth Ave."
9 It was stipulated that Gallucci 's testimony with respect to the "radio
incident" would have been substantially the same as Manan's
10 Anderson was not called as a witness
" Windsor was apparently the only night-shift employee actually
working at the time of the hearing of the original group . The others had
On this issue Robert Gartley testified that there was
friction in the plant and it was his opinion that Marian was
probably one of the causes of it but that he would not
"pinpoint her as the only one ." His only criticism of
Gallucci was she was easily irritated by the poor workman-
ship of others and vociferous in her complaints when it
occurred . He stated , however, that she had criticized the
night shift when it was composed of whites and that while
the criticism might have increased when the Blacks were
employed he admitted that this could be attributed to the
fact that the Black girls were undergoing training and
could be expected to turn out inferior work . Provocation of
racial friction was not attributed to Gallucci by Gartley.
William Gartley testified that he was in the plant area on
frequent occasions . In response to leading questions from
counsel he stated that he received reports that Marian and
Gallucci were causing friction in the plant ; that he was
concerned that violence might break out; that he requested
police surveillance of a justice of peace and that he formed
"the opinion" that Marian and Gallucci were responsible
for the friction. He gave no reasons for this opinion nor did
he cite any incident , reported or observed , which led him
to this conclusion . When the white girls reported the
threats of physical violence his response was to ask them if
they had reported the threats to his brother and Gallucci
replied that his brother would stick up for "the niggers." 12
The only testimony which connected Gary Daugherty in
any way with racial prejudice was Windsor's testimony
that she had overheard him making disparaging remarks
about the conduct and courage of Black troops in Viet
Nam. Windsor said she reported these remarks to
Anderson and William Gartley. She did not testify to their
response.
This summarizes the evidence relating to racial tension
and conflict . Direct evidence rests almost entirely on the
testimony of the employees themselves and there is little
contradiction between the testimony of Windsor and that
of Marion and Gallucci.
3. The circumstances of and reasons alleged for
the discharge
On December 31 (a holiday) Marian and Gary Daugher-
ty and Gallucci received identical telegrams from B. G.
Management , signed by Jesse Guido , reading:
This is to inform you that your services for B. G.
Management are no longer required as of 330 p.m.
Friday Dec 31 1971. Final pay check and any other
compensation due you may be picked up Monday Jan
3 1972 at 979 Fourth Ave Room 220 after lpm.
No prior warning had been received by any of the three
dischargees.
either left or were on sick leave.
12 Gartley admitted that he had, in the past , used the term "nigger" in
refemng to Blacks but I attach little relevance to this admission except to
indicate that the use of the term was not confined to employees. It is
deplorable but nevertheless true that epithets and disparaging terms are still
in prevalent use with respect to vanous ethnic groups in industrial plants
and offices.
SUPERIOR MICRO FILM 559
On Monday, January 3, the two Daughertys and
Gallucci went to Burgart's office,13 received their checks
from a secretary, and were informed by Burgart that if they
wanted to know anything to see Guido. They went to the
plant where they saw Guido who first asked them if they
were a picket line and then told them that the reason they
were fired was that he was not satisfied with the way they
worked. Guido also told them that the company (Superior)
did not want to fire them but that B. G. Management had
the upper hand. Gary Daugherty asked if he (Gary) was
just an innocent bystander and Guido told him he was.
This is the substance of the testimony of Marian and
Gallucci; Gary Daugherty was not examined as to this
conversation.
The first witness to testify on behalf of the Respondents
regarding the discharges was Wilfred Burgart. Burgart
testified that the first meeting at which the discharges were
discussed was held on December 23 in his office and was
attended by William Gartley, Guido, and himself. It had
been decided by Burgart that the three dischargees should
be fired on that day and that Guido strongly recommended
such action.14 Gartley objected and the decision was
postponed.
Late on the evening of December 30 another meeting
was held. Burgart stated that he and Guido had been
receiving complaints from William Gartley about the
dischargees for some time but that he would not fire them
and Burgart and Guido told him they were firing them. He
added Gartley had complained that two of the three had
been involved in friction with the Black employees and
that this was impairing efficiency in the plant. Gartley,
nevertheless, was still opposed to firing them. Burgart and
Guido were financing the business, however, and this, as
Burgart stated, gave them leverage. As to his knowledge of
a union in the plant, Burgart merely stated that he was
advised at this meeting that Gartley had received a
telephone call from "an unnamed union" on that day. He
stated he had no way of knowing the identity of any union
sympathizer among the employees.
As to Gary Daugherty, Burgart recommended some time
in October that he be fired but Gartley ignored him. The
recommendation was based on Daugherty's poor record
although this testimony was not supported by any specific
evidence. According to Burgart it was based on a telephone
call received from Gartley in response to which Burgart
ordered him fired. Asked how a showdown on Daugherty
was reached, Burgart testified that he had lunch with
William Gartley and his testimony as to this luncheon
reads:
Q. And would you just tell his Honor, why it
reached a showdown and what happened?
A. Well, like I said, for a long period before that,
Mr. William Gartley had been talking to me at lunch
time, about various things that Gary Daugherty had
done, various instances, and I knew that you can't run
a business that way, and I don't care who they are, if
they aren't doing it, fire them.
Q. What kind of instances?
A. Well, of course, they are all hearsay, there was
something about a time clock , something about a
mouse , a toy mouse or something that was involved in
this place , some place, there were various, well, back
when we hired the blacks originally, that was about
November, William Gartley told me that there was a
couple of comments made , and at that time, I says fire
them , don't wait, fire them, right now.
TRIAL, EXAMINER : Them, whom do you mean by
them?
THE WITNESS: Whoever it was, immaterial, whoever
it was, fire them.
On redirect examination Burgart testified that he heard
from Gartley that there might be conflicts between the
Black and white employees and that he heard this before
the Blacks were actually employed. He told Gartley to fire
them but did not identify the employees he meant. After
that and prior to December 30 he told Gartley to fire these
employees (still undesignated) a "couple of dozen times"
for reasons which he did not state . On December 30 he
heard from William Gartley that there had been a hassle at
the timeclock but the names did not mean anything to him.
Neither did he know which employees were involved in the
radio incident nor which employee or employees had
stated they would refuse to use the same toilet with the
Black employees . There is nothing in Burgart's testimony
which fixes any responsibility for the racial incidents on
either Marian or Gallucci or , for that matter, on any
individual employee.
Robert Gartley, who did have direct and continuous
contact with the employees as production manager,
testified that he was called to the meeting on December 30
(he did not attend the December 23 meeting) and as to that
meeting he testified:
Q. Now, did you participate in a meeting, which
was held on December 30th , with the partners from B
& G Management and your brother?
A. Yes, sir, I was called in around eight thirty in
the evening.
Q. Tell us what happened?
A. I was called in to the office, Jesse Guido, Bill
Gartley and Bill Burgart were there , and they called me
in, and they told me what kind of a decision that they
had come up with , due to the turmoil that was in the
plant in the last few days, and they were able to see it,
as well as hear from me, and that they were going to
discharge three people, which were Gary Daugherty,
Marian Daugherty and Ellen Gallucci.
Q. Did they tell you why?
A. For agitation within the plant.
Q. And with respect to Gary Daugherty it was
simply his work record, is that correct.
A. His work record and work habits, and the final
product that he produced wasn't satisfactory in most
cases.
13 Burgart had an accounting office at a separate location
14 Burgart 's pretrial affidavit dated February 2 he stated that decision
was reached to fire five employees , the Daughertys , Galluccl , Ansilo, and a
truckdriver named Bob Clark . Clark and Gary Daugherty were to be fired
for poor work and the three girls for causing trouble with the Blacks. While
this affidavit was received without objection it was not received as
affirmative evidence of the facts stated therein . Nevertheless , there is other
testimony which indicates five employees were involved in this discussion.
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. And was there any discussion of any union or
anything?
A. No, not with me, I didn't know anything about
a union.
Q. You didn't know anything about a union?
A. No, sir.
Q. And what reason did they call you in to the
meeting?
A. They called me in to the meeting, because they
knew that I favored as far as work, satisfactory work,
and me being in charge of production, that I had to get
the work out, that I had two very good workers there,
and I put up an argument I said , My God, I have got
two good workers that you want to discharge, they said
we are discharging them because of the agitation within
the plant, and somebody else can take their job over, or
we will suffer a little bit on production.
Q. And the reports of agitation mostly came from
you, since you were the immediate supervisor?
A. Right.
Gartley also stated:
I didn't participate in the decision, I was told that they
were being fired, then I entered my plea that they were
good workers, which I did not get anywhere with, they
were still discharged and then the telegrams were sent.
In response to leading questions from Respondent's
counsel Gartley testified that there was less friction in the
plant since the discharges. Gartley admitted, however, that
when the plant reopened on January 3 the Black girls were
returned to the night shift thus reducing the opportunities
for friction. Later in April, the plant went back to a one-
shift operation due to a declining force.
William Gartley testified that he attended the meeting of
December 23 with Burgart and Guido and that there was
discussion of Gallucci 's attitude which was found to be
causing "disturbances and disruptions" among the other
employees. The other employees were not identified either
by name or group and neither Gallucci's attitude nor the
disturbances were further defined . The same charges were
made against Marian . As to the charge of racial conflict
Gartley's testimony is ambiguous. He stated:
Q. (By Mr. Brown) Did these discussion [sic] relate
to whether or not these two ladies appeared to be
accommodating to the new racial situation?
A. This is basically the contention of the whole
meeting, as to what was their problem with production,
because we had noticed a slow down of various people
on or about the middle of December, about December
15, is when it was picked off.
Although Burgart and Guido had determined to fire
both Daughertys and Gallucci, Gartley asked that they
hold up the decision until after Christmas which was done.
As to the meeting on the night of December 30, Gartley
testified:
Q. Now, the action, you and Mr. Guido and Mr.
Burgart met on December 30th, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you meet on that date?
15 Guido testified that he heard reports concerning Manan 's remark
about using the restroom and about Gallucci's temper and decided they
could get along without them. He also received a report that Marian was
A. Well, it was primarily due to different allega-
tions that had happened that particular week , two shifts
were involved and it was getting out of hand , I in fact,
Mr. Guido, I believe came into the office and I talked
to him , and this is when we had asked for the police to
more or less be under surveillance at the plant, and
basically it was because of the racial tension that was
building up and in the matter of what decision was
going to be made and who was going to be or to do the
firing, that is exactly what it amounted to.
Q. You felt that they should make the decision is
that correct?
A. Yes, under the contract , I felt that it was their
job.
Q. Did they make the decision?
A. They did in no uncertain terms.
Q. Did you object to it?
A. I had no objections to it, it was a matter of me
or them.
Q. Well, you met sometime before your brother
Bob was called in is that right?
A. That's correct.
Jesse Guido , the other partner in B. G. Management,
testified that he had never been in favor of hiring Gary
Daugherty because his wife was working in the plant and
he believed that made for an awkward situation. At the
meeting on December 23 Guido said it was decided to fire
all five of the employees under consideration ; Marian,
Gallucci, Ansilo, and Clark and Gary Daugherty.is This
decision was based on the report of William Gartley as to
their poor performance. (No specific faults in performance
were given .) Guido's response was "fire them , we don't
need them, we have a bankrupt company." He stated he
was surprised to find them back at work (the next week)
and was told by William Gartley that it was Christmas and
he (Guido) "being a gentlemen, let it ride because it was
Christmas." On the day when he observed the hassle over
the radio he reminded William Gartley that it wouldn't
have happened if he had done what he had been asked to
do.
When he heard of the pushing at the checkout time on
December 30 he told William Gartley to fire them
(presumably the five in question) or he (Gartley) would be
fired . Guido bought a new lock for the office door to lock
Gartley out if his orders were not obeyed . At this time, so
he testified , he had not heard of any union activity in the
plant.
Gary Daugherty, testified that he was employed as a film
processor by Superior from June 1971 , until his discharge
on December 30. He was a salaried employee , his hours
were 8 a .m. to 4 p .m., and he spent most of his time in the
darkroom developing microfilm . (He also played in a band
at night, closing at I a.m. and admitted that Gartley had
complained and suggested he either work for the band or
for Superior .) A timeclock was installed in the plant on
December 10 but Daugherty , as a salaried employee, did
not use it.16
Robert Gartley testified that Daugherty was not a good
very outspoken.
16 Timecards punched by Daugherty were received in evidence as Resp.
Exhs . 5, 6, and 7, covering the period from December 10 to December 30
SUPERIOR MICRO FILM 561
worker, chiefly because he would not remain with his
machine when it was running and that Superior had a lot
of repeat work because of his negligence. Daugherty was
put on the timeclock to control his tardiness and
absenteeism. Gartley also testified that it was frequently
necessary for Marian to call her husband at home to tell
him to get to work when he was late.
William Gartley testified that Daugherty's problems
were his absenteeism, his lack of responsibility, and a
failure to keep records of the amount of film that was being
processed. When warned or reprimanded Daugherty would
swear under his breath or shrug his shoulders. As to
absenteeism and tardiness Gartley stated:
Q. Why was he required to punch in a time card
from November, 1971?
A. When we originally hired him, he was hired to
be in at eight o'clock and leave at four, and it was
reported to me by his immediate supervisor that he was
coming in late, and quite often I don't get into the plant
until nine o'clock, eight-thirty, nine o'clock, because I
do a lot of work at night, and upon gaining this
knowledge, I talked to Mr. Daugherty about his
lateness, again I got the attitude of the shrug of the
shoulder and that was about it, and so I talked to Mr.
Guido and Mr. Burgart about this condition, and they
suggested the idea of making him punch in, to
determine, perhaps help him finding his own self, and I
think this is really what the problem was with Mr.
Daugherty.
Q. Your employees, when they punch in on a time
card, do they generally punch in if they are required at
eight, sometime before eight.
A. As a rule, yes.
Daugherty was, nevertheless, given a pay raise in Novem-
ber as, according to Gartley, an incentive to settle down.
Conclusions
I find that Marian and Gallucci were discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. This finding is based
to a large degree on what I consider to be a demonstrably
false defense; i.e., that they were discharged for causing
friction and the provocation of racial disturbances 17 The
testimony of Respondent's own witnesses belies this
defense.
The first incident advanced to support their position
rests on Marian's admitted comment concerning use of the
restroom after William Gartley advised his employees that
he was hiring Blacks18 Her reaction, however reprehensible,
was shared by at least some of the other employees and it is
not contradicted that remarks of a similar nature were
made at the time. Robert Gartley, to whom the remarks
was addressed, did not appear unduly disturbed by it and,
in fact, the purpose of the meeting was to quell such
anticipated reaction. Certainly Gartley's response that
were received in evidence There is no explanation for Daugherty's
contradictory testimony that he did not sign the timeclock On the other
hand an examination of these records shows that his tardiness and
absenteeism appear to have been minimal
iT In reaching this conclusion I have considered the contrary findings of
the Unemployment Review Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(Resp . Exhs. I, 2, and 3) The findings, as a reading will indicate are ipsi
dixir conclusions on the part of the Board and do not set forth the
Marian could either use the restroom next door or hold it
until she got home does not indicate that he considered it
either grave or unexpected . This meeting, it should be
noted , must have been held in late September since the
Black girls started work on October 1 and the meeting
predated their actual employment . Resurrection of this
incident as justification for a discharge on December 30
suggests that an overly diligent search for such justification
was made . Nor could it be alleged that the remark,
although it may have denoted a hostile attitude toward the
employment of Blacks, could contribute to any friction
since the Blacks were not then working . This is not to
belittle either the bigotry or the vulgarity of her remark but
to evaluate its relevancy to the motive for discharge 3
months later . It is this motive which is the issue, not
Marian's social attitudes.
No racial incidents occurred between this meeting and
the last week in December when the shifts were commin-
gled. What did occur was the meeting between the day-
shift girls and William Gartley in which they protested
what they considered an inequity between their wages and
those of the newly hired employees. It is not disputed that
at this meeting Marian and Gallucci were the chief
spokesman for the girls.
I think their conduct at this meeting together with the
various comments made respecting Marian and Gallucci
by the Gartleys sufficient to establish that they were
identified by the Gartleys as leaders among the employees.
Both , on the record , were outspoken and unafraid, two
qualities which do not endear employees to management
either in industry or government.
As to the Christmas week incidents there is nothing in all
the testimony to establish that either Marian or Gallucci
was an instigator of any of these incidents . The radio
incident was the result of an inherent conflict in musical
taste between the white and the Blacks and the record does
not establish that either group was more at fault than the
other . 19 All that can be made of this is that the whites were
used to their music on the day shift and the Blacks were
used to their music at night . The conduct of all the
employees can best be described as childish. The same is
true of the tape recorder incident which occurred the next
day.
Neither did the pushing incident at the timeclock at
checkout time on December 30 specifically involve either
Marian or Gallucci. Since Marian was first in line she
could have been the victim of the pushing but not the
instigator of it. The incident was both brief in duration and
trivial in import. Again it destroys the credibility of
Respondents ' witnesses when it is utilized as cause for the
discharge of two of their admittedly hardest working and
most experienced employees.
Equally absurd is Robert Gartley's assertion that
Gallucci was discharged because she complained of poor
evidentiary facts on which they were based As evidence in this proceeding
they are worthless
is The Respondents ' answer was filed before counsel was engaged, so the
asserted defense was not concocted by him His brief on this issue was a
model of restraint
is Nor does it establish that Marian and Gallucci played a more
prominent part in this than the others. It was Ansilo who first changed the
station on the radio.
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
workmanship on materials on which she would have to
work . 20 It is not only unusual but it provokes disbelief
when an employer advances conscientious devotion to
good workmanship as a cause for termination . William
Gartley's contention that her work was good but her
"attitude" was wrong is supported by no other specifics.
The Gartleys were obviously trying to make the best of a
very bad situation for each had protested these discharges
to Guido. Testifying before the eyes of the man who
controlled the pursestrings and their jobs they strove to be
as honest as prudence permitted.
Respondents also argue that they had no knowledge of
union activity on the part of their employees, including
Marian and Gallucci , and that issue must be met . There is
certainly no direct evidence which establishes such
knowledge or from which knowledge of the identity of any
of the employees may be inferred . While some of the
employees signed cards in the plant on December 29
Marian testified that this was done surreptitiously and I am
unwilling to base such an inference on the size of the plant
alone.
William Gartley did, however, acquire knowledge that
union activity had taken place in the plant when he
received the telephone call from Schneider on the after-
noon of December 30. Despite some ambiguity in his
testimony it is impossible to believe that he did not
communicate such knowledge to Guido immediately.21
The plant was operating either at a loss or on marginal
profits and the impact of union organization would
necessarily have been serious and perhaps disastrous.
Guido's testimony that he did not know of District 50's
demand for recognition on December 30 is unworthy of
belief . This finding is sufficient to discredit his entire
testimony for it is axiomatic that a man does not lie unless
he has something to conceal.22
The only plausible pattern I can discern is that Guido,
who made the discharge decision alone and contrary to the
recommendations of the Gartleys, determined to meet the
challenge of unionization by the time -honored response of
discharging the known or suspected union leaders . In this
instance the finger of suspicion would point directly to
Marian and Gallucci . They had not been identified as
engaged in union activity but they had led the protest
meeting in November and they had identified themselves
as the probable leaders of any dissident activity . I conclude
that Guido , when confronted with this new organization,
selected Marian and Gallucci for discharge based on this
not unreasonable suspicion alone 23 This conclusion is
fortified by the fact that the testimony , at least as I
evaluate it , does not support the charge that either or both
were responsible for or played a leading part in any of the
incidents which occurred during that week . In fact if the
easing of racial tensions was the reason for discharge, the
10 No contention was advanced that Gallucci 's protests were unwarrant-
ed
21 This inference is supported by the testimony of both Guido and
Bogart that they and not the Gartleys had full control of the operation to
the extent that Guido told William Gartley to fire the dischargees or he
would be fired There is also Guido's testimony he had purchased a lock
and would lock Gartley out of the plant
22 It might be added , perhaps unnecessarily , that Guido's demeanor on
the stand confirmed this finding . He did not convince me that he was a
discharges served little purpose since the employees were
returning to separate shifts again on Monday.
It is my finding that Marian Daugherty and Ellen
Gallucci were discharged for concerted activity and
suspected union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
As to Gary Daugherty, I think the allegations of
excessive tardiness and absenteeism were likewise con-
trived . Respondents ' own timecards do not establish that
either was excessive for a salaried employee . Since Gary
received a wage increase in November I do not accept the
claim that his work was poor in either quality or quantity. I
find that he was discharged because he was Marian's
brother and that the true cause was her suspected union
activity. As such it was equally in violation of Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
E. The Refusal To Bargain
On December 30 District 50 had obtained 20 signed
authorization cards from the employees of Superior. A list
of the employees of Superior as of that date (G.C. Exh. 2)
shows 33 employees in the bargaining unit . 24 District 50
therefore represented a clear majority at the time Schneider
made his telephone demand for recognition of William
Gartley . On the same day Schneider sent Gartley a letter
(G.C. Exh. 25) reading:
This is to advise that a substantial majority of your
employees have chosen the International Union of
District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the
United States and Canada , as their bargaining repre-
sentative.
You are accordingly advised and we hereby request
and demand recognition as the bargaining agent thus
chosen for the purpose of negotiating and executing a
contract dealing with rates of pay , hours of work, and
other conditions of employment on behalf of all
production , maintenance, and clerical employees,
which also includes the shippers.
Should you entertain any bona fide doubt as to our
union having been chosen by the majority of the
aforementioned personnel , we propose an immediate
conference for the purpose of resolving the question of
representation.
Kindly advise of your position in this matter.
It is to be noted that the complaint herein alleges a
different unit description from that set forth in Schneider's
letter . The complaint sets forth the appropriate unit as:
All employees employed at Respondent's New Kens-
ington , Pennsylvania , facility, excluding all office
clerical employees and guards , professional employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
No attack has been directed to the appropriateness of the
truthful witness
23 Guido's comment , when the three dischargees appeared at the plant
on January 3 to inquire as to the reason for their discharge , in which he
asked if they were a "picket line" suggests that he suspected they had been
among the card signers and that he understood that they believed this was
the real reason for their discharge
24 This computation excludes Ralph Anderson, a supervisor of the
disadvantaged employees.
SUPERIOR MICRO FILM 563
unit and I find the unit set forth in the complaint
appropriate.25
Gartley's response, according to Schneider, was that he
would have to see a lawyer and contact Schneider at a later
date. On January 3 Gartley sent District 50 a letter (G.C.
Exh. 26) which read:
This is to advise you that as of this date, we have
received your letter dated December 30, 1971. This is to
inform you that Superior Microfilm Systems, Inc. has
no employees at this time.
Superior Microfilm Systems, Inc. is under contract
with a facilities management Company which is known
as B G Management Co., 979 Fourth Avenue, New
Kensington, Pa. 15068.
It is requested that you directed your inquiries to Mr.
Wilfred W. Burgart of the B G Management Company
who may be reached by phone at 335-7716.
Some time later Schneider and another representative of
District 50 went to the Superior plant and requested
recognition in a meeting with Burgart, Guido, and William
Gartley. Schneider was told that it would be necessary to
go through a Board election. That terminated all contact
between District 50 and the Respondents.
Schneider's testimony is not disputed except that Guido
stated that sometime in January he sent District 50 a letter
(not offered in evidence) advising it that all negotiations
would have to be conducted with B. G. Management and
not with Superior. He then took the position that the
parties would have to hold an election.
Having found that Respondents committed unfair labor
practices immediately upon receipt of District 50's demand
by discharging Marian Daugherty, Gary Daugherty, and
Ellen Gallucci and by threatening its employees with
worsened working conditions if they selected District 50
the sole issue presented is whether Respondents' conduct
warranted a bargaining order. I find it does for the
following reasons.
The immediate and precipitate discharge of two of the
leaders of the organizational movement effectively termi-
nated all union activity in the plant. The circumstances
were such that the remaining employees must have held the
strong suspicion if not the firm conviction that these
discharges were due to their leadership since no other
reason could be apparent to them. There is no more
effective means of frustrating the rights of employees to
organize and to bargain collectively than to discharge
union organizers immediately upon receipt of knowledge
that such organization activity has taken place. The effect
of such action is not only immediate in its impact but
enduring and I do not think it is straining the means of the
words "outrageous" and "pervasive" to so describe the
conduct of the Respondent herein.26 The threats made to
the remaining employees of stricter working conditions
through Smay, while not in themselves subject to such
characterization, did add fuel to the flames kindled by the
discharges. I think the threats also made a further
25 The differences in the unit description between that set forth in
Schneider's letter and that of the complaint are too insubstantial to raise
any issue
26 NLRB v G,ssel Packing Co, 395 U S. 615
27 1 distinguish this case from the Board 's decision in Congoleum
Industries, Inc, 197 NLRB No 52, in that in Congoleum the Administrative
contribution, if any was needed , to the employees ' insight
into the Respondents ' true motive in firing two of its oldest
and best workers.27
Fortifying the conviction that an affirmative order is
proper herein is the undisputed fact that none of the cards
were obtained under any taint of fraud or misrepresenta-
tion . The evidence is that a majority of the girls were not
only willing but anxious for representation and there is no
evidence of any refusal to join the movement apart from
that of Smay, a stockholder in Superior. Apart from two
part-time employees and Smay, 21 of the 23 girls on the
day shift signed cards . 28 (The night-shift employees were
not solicited, presumably because of the friction that had
then been created between the shifts.)
I therefore find a bargaining order warranted.
Upon the foregoing findings and upon the entire record
in this case I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening their employees with a reduction in
benefits if they selected a union as their bargaining
representative , Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. By discharging three employees for the purpose of
discouraging membership in a labor organization Respon-
dents violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
3. By refusing to bargain in good faith with District 50
on and after January 3, 1972, Respondents violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The unit appropriate for collective bargaining is:
All employees at the Respondents' New Kensington,
Pennsylvania , facility; excluding - all office clerical
employees and guards , professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices it will be recommended
that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action.
Having found Respondents discharged Marian Daugher-
ty, Gary Daugherty, and Ellen Gallucci in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act , it will be recommended
that they offer them and each of them full and immediate
reinstatement to their former jobs or , if those jobs no
longer exist , to substantially equivalent jobs, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges
and make them whole for any loss of pay they or any one
of them may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against them . Such loss is to be computed on a
quarterly basis with interest at 6 percent per annum.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
Law Judge found that the discharges were not motivated by union animus
but by refusal (which he found protected) to cross a picket line and that
union activity and organization continued after the discharges . Neither of
those factors, which f would find persuasive in recommending remedy, was
present here.
28 Betty Vetter signed a card on January 3.
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
law and upon the entire record I recommend , pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following: 29
ORDER
Respondents Superior Microfilm Systems, Inc. and/or
Wilfred W. Burgart and Jesse Guido, Partners d/b/a B. G.
Management Company, their officers , agents , successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with a reduction in benefits if
they select a union to represent them for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
(b) Discharging or otherwise affecting the hire, tenure, or
term or condition of employment of any employee to
discourage membership in a labor organization.
(c) Refusing to bargain in good faith with International
Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the
United States and Canada, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of their employees in the unit found
appropriate herein.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer Marian Daugherty, Gary Daugherty, and Ellen
Gallucci full and immediate reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent jobs, without loss of their seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make them and each of them
whole for any loss of earnings or other monetary loss they
or any of them may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination practices against them in the manner set
forth in the "Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their
right to full reinstatement upon application, in accordance
with the Selective Service Act, and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharged
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Upon request bargain collectively with International
Union of Distract 50 as the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of their employees in the unit found appropriate
herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and , if an understanding is reached , embody same in
a signed written agreement.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records relevant and
necessary to a determination of the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(e) Post at New Kensington, Pennsylvania, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."30 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, in conspicuous
places, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days, where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision , what steps
Respondents has taken to comply herewith.31
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint , as to all
allegations not found to be in violation of the Act, be
dismissed.
29 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 be the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
30 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.
31 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith." /
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with stricter
working conditions if they select a union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee to discourage
union activity or membership.
WE WILL offer immediate reemployment to Manan
Daugherty, Gary Daugherty, and Ellen Gallucci in
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
similar jobs , without loss of seniority or any other rights
or privileges.
WE WILL pay Marian Daugherty, Gary Daugherty,
and Ellen Gallucci for any wages they lost since we
fired them to discourage union activity and we will pay
them interest on such money at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL notify Marian Daugherty, Gary Daugher-
ty, and Ellen Gallucci, if they are serving in the Armed
Forces, of their right to have their jobs back upon
discharge.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain with International
Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of
the United States and Canada, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our employees in the unit
found appropriate concerning wages , rates of pay,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment , and if we reach agreement with said
Union we will sign a written contract covering the
terms of such agreement . The appropriate unit is:
All employees at the Respondent's New Kensing-
ton, Pennsylvania, facility; encluding office cleri-
cal employees and guards, professional employ-
ees and supervisors as defined by the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members
of any labor organization or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization, except to
SUPERIOR MICRO FILM 565
the extent that membership in a labor organization may be
required under a union-security clause in a collective-
bargainmg contract lawful under Section 8(a)(3) of the
Labor Management Relations Act, as amended.
SUPERIOR MICRO FILMS
SYSTEMS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
WILFRED W. BUGART AND
JESSE GUIDO, PARTNERS,
D/B/A B . G. MANAGEMENT
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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 concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000
Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Tele-
phone 412-644-2977.