Teleservice Co. of Wyoming Valley

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1053
for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for at least 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith a
It is finally recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt
of this Decision the Respondent notify said Regional Director in writing that it will
comply with the terms hereof, the Board issue an order requiring it to take such action.
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read . "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees tnat:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bar-
gaining unit described below:
All production and maintenance employees including shipping and receiv-
ing employees and truckdrivers at our Huntington Park plant, exclusive of
office clerical employees, eudds, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of the above-named
Union to bargain collectively on behalf of the employees in the above-described
unit.
CADILLAC STEEL PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 S.
Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5206, if they have any ques-
tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Teleservice Co. of Wyoming Valley, John Walsonavich t/a Serv-
ice Electric Company, Service Electric TV Cable Company,
Inc., Tamaqua TV Cable Company , Inc., and Service Electric
Cable T.V. Inc.' and United Industrial Workers of North
America of the Seafarers International Union of North Amer-
ica, Atlantic , Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 4-CA-3150. November 214 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 28, 1964, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
1 The name of Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.
149 NLRB No. 101.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed what purported to be exceptions 2 to
the Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions to the Decision and also an answering brief to the
Respondent's brief. The Charging Party also filed exceptions to
the Decision.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning
and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Deci-
sion and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and
briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications set
forth below.
2 The Board received a document filed by John Walsonavich , Respondent ' s president,
which was intended to serve as exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision . The docu
ment was rejected by the Board 's Associate Executive Secretary on the ground that it
was untimely filed. Thereafter , Walsonavich attempted to refile it claiming that he had
mailed it "in plenty of time" for delivery in Washington , DC., on August 12, the dead-
line for filing exceptions . He requests that the Board accept it , notwithstanding the fact
that the deadline was not met . The envelope in which it was enclosed bears an Allen-
town, Pennsylvania , postmark, dated August 12, 1964
We have carefully considered the matter and are satisfied that the Associate Executive
Secretary was fully warranted in rejecting Respondent ' s document , and we deny the re-
quest for permission to refile it . In so deciding, we have borne in mind the admonition
of the courts that the Board ' s Rules and Regulations , especially regarding the filing of
exceptions , are not to be applied in a rigid manner . See N.L.R.B . v. Marshall Mainte-
nance Corp., 320 F. 2d 641 (CA. 3 ), for a complete discussion of the court decisions
bearing on this problem . We do not apply our Rules in such spirit in this case Walsona-
vich, after withdrawal of the counsel who had represented Respondent at the hearing,
acted as Respondent 's representative of record , and received , at his request , two exten-
sions of time to file exceptions . The second extension was granted only after he had
hied a document which was wholly inadequate under the Board's Rules . At that time
ne was advised in writing as to the form and nature of the matters to be included in
his exceptions and was given an additional 28 days in which to file perfected exceptions.
He was specifically informed that if the exceptions were not received by the Board's
Washington offices on or before August 12, 1964, they would not be accepted Moreover,
earlier , Walsonavich had been sent copies of all pertinent rules and regulations govern-
ing the filing of exceptions and briefs . Notwithstanding the foregoing , the exceptions
riled by Walsonavich, which he seeks to refile with the Board , contain no citations of
the record or of applicable authorities in support of his exceptions , and as indicated,
they were received in the Board 's Washington offices after the time for filing had ex-
pired. Walsonavich has not come forward with any evidence that the delay was caused
by any circumstances other than the fact that he apparently mailed the exceptions in
Allentown , Pennsylvania , on the very day they were due in Washington , DC He has
not come forward with any evidence to support his allegation that they were thus mailed
in plenty of time "to be received" by the Board ' s Washington offices on the same day.
As no extraordinary circumstances appear to justify the untimely filing of the exceptions,
and as the exceptions involved are deficient in form, we deny Walsonavich ' s request for
permission to refile them at this time . The exceptions are rejected.
TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1055
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders
that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
with the following modifications :
Paragraph 1(f) is redesignated 1(g) and a new paragraph 1(f)
is included as follows :
"Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as
the representative of employees in the certified unit with respect to
rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment."
Substitute for paragraph 2(a) the following:
"Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described
in the Board's certification with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement."
The following paragraphs are inserted in the Appendix following
the fourth indented paragraph which concludes "... as authorized by
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act."
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the United
Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers Inter-
national Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and
Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, as the representative of all
of the employees of the bargaining unit described below with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bar-
gaining unit is :
All our construction, maintenance, and line installation
employees at Bethlehem, Wilkes-Barre, Mahanoy City, and
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania , operations , excluding all officers,
office clerical employees , guards, watchmen , and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, and all carpenters on the payroll
of Service Electric Company at Mahanoy City.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case , heard before Trial Examiner George L. Powell at Wilkes -Barre, Penn-
sylvania, on March 31, April 1, 2, 8, and 9, 1964 , pursuant to a charge filed Novem-
ber 1 , 1963, and a complaint issued February 18, 1964, presents two issues : Whether
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent 1 engaged in surveillance and interrogated its employees concerning their
union membership, activities, and desires; 2 and whether cthe Respondent refused to
recognize and bargain with the Charging Party as the representative of the majority
of its employees. Respondent answered the complaint on February 24, 1964, join-
ing issue only with respect to the 8 (a) (1) allegations in the complaint relating to
June 1963, and then on the first day of the hearing, March 31, 1964, Respondent
served the General Counsel and the Charging Party with another answer which
denied the essential allegations of the complaint.3 But at the hearing the Respond-
ent, appearing by its president, John Walsonavich,4 admitted that he refused to bar-
gain with the Charging Party commencing on or about October 1, 1963, and continu-
ing to date.5 This refusal to bargain was based upon two contentions, i.e., that the
unit was inappropriate and that the Union had not properly won in the Board-
conducted election
Upon the entire record 6 in the case including my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
John Walsonavich has been at certain times material herein, an individual pro-
prietor located in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, and doing business under the,trade
name and style of Service Electric Company. -
.Teleservice Company of Wyoming Valley is, and has been at all times material
herein, a Pennsylvania corporation located in Wilkes-Barre,.Pennsylvania.
Service Electric TV Cable Company, Inc., is, and has been at all times material
herein, a Pennsylvania corporation located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Tamaqua TV Table Company, Inc., is and has been at all times material herein,
a Pennsylvania corporation located in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
1 At the close of the hearing, General Counsel moved to amend the complaint and add
a new corporation to which Respondent Walsonavich testified and admitted in his answer
of March 31, 1964. The motion was granted and the complaint was amended to add
"Service Electric Cable T.V. Inc"
'Because of testimony adduced by his witnesses, General Counsel moved to amend his
complaint to add (a) threat of reprisal to sell; (b) unilateral wage increases; (c) con-
stant harassment of employees; and (d) Respondent-sponsored petition against the
Charging Party, as additional 8(a)(1) violations Motion granted over Respondents
objections but leave given Respondent to renew the motion at a later time or move for
additional time to prepare his case.
i General Counsel moved for a summary judgment according to the Board 's Rules and
Regulations, Section 102.20, urging the answer on March 31, 1964, was untimely filed
and must be rejected Charging Party joined this motion, and, as an additional reason,
moved for a directed judgment as it had' never even received the February 24, 1964,
letter in accordance with the Board's Rulea and Regulations. Respondent stated that be
had a copy of the Board 's Rules and Regulations but argued that his letter of February 24,
1964, was a proper answer and all he was doing on March 31, 1964, was amending his
answer The Trial Examiner, although very conscious of the importance of maintaining
prescribed rules for the course and conduct of an unfair labor practice trial, denied the
motions of the General Counsel and the Charging Party for the reasons that all witnesses
were present and it appeared that only a slight delay would be caused in the case by re-
ceiving the March 31, 1964, answer and permitting Respondent to fully litigate the case
4 By letter dated April 27, 1964, the 'Trial Examiner was notified that Attorney Sandor
Yelen no longer represents Respondent in the case.
5 Record excerpt page 30:
TRIAL EXAMINER: Now,'do you deny in paragraph 7 that-the Union did not ask
you to bargain from October 1st, 1963, on? Did the Union ask you to bargain from
October 1st, 1963, and continue to date?
Mr. WALSONAVICH: The answer to that question is no because of new evidence to
be filed. In other words, they did ask to bargain-if you want that answer-they
did ask to bargain
TRIAL EXAMINER: That is what I wanted
'Mr. WALSONAVICH: But, I refuse to bargain on the grounds that 80 percent of
the employees had signed affidavits asking me not to bargain which I have proof
right here
6 General Counsel 's motion to correct transcript , dated May 7, 1964, not being opposed
by Respondent and being in accord with the recollection of the Trial Examiner , is hereby
granted and the record is corrected as noted therein.
TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1057
Service Electric Cable T. V. Inc., has been since July 19, 1963, a Pennsylvania cor-
poration with its principal office at Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania.
The aforementioned companies are and have been at all material times herein
affiliated businesses, with common officers, ownership, directors, and operators and
constitute a single integrated business enterprise; the said owners and operators for-
mulate a common labor policy affecting the employees of said companies. All are
referred to herein as Respondent.
At all times material herein Respondent has been engaged in receiving television
signals from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New York, New York, and, by means
of coaxial cable, engaged in carrying the signals to customers located in and near the
respective cities of the various component companies of Respondent. At all times
material herein, Respondent has also operated a microwave relay facility at Mahanoy
City, Pennsylvania, which transmits television signals picked up from other areas to
receiving antennas located in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
During the course and conduct of its business, Respondent annually receives in
excess of $500,000 for its services and purchases in excess of $20,000 worth of goods
and equipment from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Respondent is, and I find that it at all times material herein has been, engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Industrial Workers of North America of The Seafarers International Union
of North America, Atlantic, Gulf; Lakes and Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO,
herein called Charging Party or Union, is an organization of employees for the pur-
pose of representing employees with employers regarding collective bargaining for
wages, hours, and working conditions. It has engaged in collective bargaining for
employees in the Pennsylvania area and has signed collective-bargaining contracts.
It has a constitution and bylaws which provides for its internal management.?
I find, on the basis of the above facts, that the Charging Party is, and at all times
material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. -
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The following is a chronological list of events leading up to this case:
February 1963-Organizing activities of the Charging Party.
February 27, 1963-Petition for representatives filed in Case No. 4-RC-5369.
March 22 to 26, April 1, 1963-The hearing was held in the representation case.
May 8, 1963-The Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the representation case
June 6, 1963-Election held with two challenges which was sufficient to control
the outcome of the election and objections to the conduct of the election were
filed by the petitioning union (Charging Party)-later withdrawn.
July 31, 1963-Supplemental decision on the challenges issued in which it was
noted that the Charging Party won the election.
August 10, 1963-Respondent, by its counsel, filed a petition for reconsideration.
August 23, 1963-Board denied the petition for reconsideration.
September 4, 1963-Board denied Respondent's motion for reconsideration of
the August 23, 1963, Order.
September 6, 1963-Respondent asked the Board for reconsideration of its
denial.
September 11, 1963-Board denied petition for reconsideration.
September 23, 1963-Respondent filed objections to the conduct of the election.
September 26, 1963-Petitioner withdrew its objections.
September 27, 1963-Regional Director certified the Charging Party as the
collective-bargaining representative.
October 7, 1963-Respondent, by counsel, asked for reconsideration of the
certificate.
October 21, 1963-Board denied this request.
October 22, 1963-Employer requested leave to file affidavits.
November 1, 1963-The charge in instant case was filed.
December 18, 1963-Board issued an order allowing the filing of affidavits pro-
vided they are filed by December 30. None were ever filed.
7 These facts are taken from the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Frank
Drozak, agent of the Charging Party.
770-076-65-vol. 149-68
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
February 13, 1964-Board affirmed the certification of representatives.
February 19 and March 6, 1964-Action by Board's Associate Executive Secre-
tary notifying Respondent there was nothing more to be done and the certifi-
cation of representatives stands.
The General Counsel called 10 witnesses by subpenas.
B. Credibility
As noted above , the witnesses called by the General Counsel were called by sub-
pena. Each of them appeared to be testifying to matters that he would personally
rather not discuss, but inasmuch as they were under oath they testified . It was obvi-
ous that there was a great deal of respect and admiration held by each of the
employees for John Walsonavich , their employer . They gave straightforward tes-
timony without an appearance of evasion even when the testimony would seem detri-
mental to their own pride. From my close observation of these witnesses I am
convinced that the stories they related were true and correct to their best informa-
tion and they are credited as against denials and conflicting testimony by witnesses
for the Respondent unless specifically otherwise noted.
John Walsonavich finished his formal education with completion of high school.
Since 1945 he has been engaged in community antenna systems , as involved in the
instant case , and is a self-styled millionaire . He is a man of obvious tremendous
energy and aggressiveness . He has a great store of initiative and imagination and is
apparently undaunted by any obstacle in his path toward providing a successful com-
munity antenna service. He has a deep feeling of personal friendship and loyalty to
each of his employees and this undoubtedly has motivated him and has colored much
of his activities involved in the instant proceedings . Much of his activities appears
to be motivated by his absolute disbelief that his loyal employees could ever possibly
select a union to represent them in dealings with him. As will be noted below in
greater detail , Walsonavich , since a week before the election in June 1963, has con-
tinually and continuously kept talking to his employees about their union activity,
and, in certain instances , his employees have even signed statements to the effect that
they did not want the Union to represent them. However, these statements were
made, as they testify, to get their employer off their backs.
Nine employees , the most senior of whom , Edward Tomcavage , has 14 years'
service with the Respondent , testified to a wide variety of actions taken by Walsona-
vich. According to these employees , Walsonavich 's campaign of harassment com-
menced shortly after the filing of the Union's petition for an election and continued
up to and including the date of the trial. Thus , shortly after the petition was filed in
February of 1963, Walsonavich engaged in the following activities:
The 8 ( a) (1) activities
1. He polled the employees individually as to their union sympathies . This was
ultimately admitted by Walsonavich but only after he was confronted with his own
affidavit.
2. He created the impression of surveillance and attempted to get employees to
report union activities back to him.
3. He made a number of employees supervisors , in order to keep them from vot-
ing in the election, and then dropped the plan.
4. He threatened to curtail production and to farm out his work.
Just before the election in June 1963, and thereafter, Walsonavich 's antiunion cam-
paign continued by the following types of activities:
a. He told employees he would sell the business if the Union got in.
b. On the election day, he told employees to vote "No" if they knew what was good
for them.
c. He admitted granting unilateral increases to all employees , labeling these
increases bonuses
d. He gave the so-called bonuses to four employees in return for which these
employees were to forget the Union.
e. He threatened to kill employee DeBalko because of his union adherence.
f He started the circulation of a petition disavowing the Union , through his agent,
McLaren.8
8 On March 30, 1964 , the day before this trial opened, McLaren brought around another
petition for the employees to sign saying, "John [ Walsonavichl wants you to read it"
(Wonsock's testimony ) Walsonavich , later the same day, brought around the same peti-
tion for Wonsock to sign.
TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1059
g. Shortly before the trial of this case , he took a poll of individual employees
regarding their union sympathies.
As an example of the credited testimony , employee Wonsock testified that right
after the petition was filed Walsonavich began questioning the employees in the first
week in March 1963 about their union activities . Walsonavich fired Tomcavage,
DeBalko, and Wonsock from Teleservice and put them under Service Electric Com-
pany , then he told the three employees , according to Wonsock's credited testimony,
.. if we would forget about the Union activities that he could straighten everything
out . and he told us that he had a detective checking us out as far as what we were
doing about the Union . And, he told us that he received information from a company
employee, and he then said that the information came from a detective."
Thereafter , continued Wonsock, "off and on at various times he [Walsonavich]
stopped and questioned us about the Union." He would ask them, "If we were stay-
ing away from the Union or we were affiliating with the Union ." As to how often
this occurred, Wonsock said , "Oh, it was a chain of events that just kept continuing."
For example , in May 1963 , before the election, Walsonavich told Wonsock , ". . . if
this Union gets in here there is no telling what I will do .... I am liable to come up
and shoot you and your family while you are sleeping."
Although no actual new evidence was produced at the hearing , the Respondent
claimed that there was a hole in the door of the room where the election was held
and this should have voided the election . This evidence admittedly was available as
of June 1963 when the election was held, and there is no evidence that it was used
as the basis for objecting to the original election. Moreover , as noted above, the
Respondent also raised a unit problem , but submitted no evidence in support of its
position.
C. The refusal to bargain
The Merits
The technical aspects of Respondent 's refusal to bargain in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act remained essentially unchallenged . In the face of the outstand-
ing Board certification , Respondent flatly indicated , as noted earlier , that it will not
bargain with the Union and any attempts to get bargaining by the Union would be
futile. This violates Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and I so find.
The three defenses he raises to this issue , i.e., (1) newly discovered evidence; (2)
inappropriate unit; and ( 3) a majority no longer want the Union, lack merit. As to
(1), the hole in the door does not constitute newly discovered evidence being avail-
able, as it was , at the time of the election ; as to (2), the Board has passed on the
unit question and it cannot be raised at this proceeding . There must be an end to
litigation ; as to ( 3), the Board certification extends a minimum period of 12 months
during which time no change in the representative can be made by the employees.
A grant of wage increases by an employer to its employees without first discussing
the matter with the collective-bargaining agent of the employees is a refusal to bargain
in good faith and violates Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Accordingly, Respondent's
action in granting wage raises to four employees violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
D. The 8(a)(1) activities
The Merits
It is true that an employer lawfully may be opposed to a union of his employees.
But cases are too numerous to mention in which the Board and the courts have found
that interrogation of employees as to their union activities ; spying on their union
activities ; affecting their terms and conditions of employment because of their union
activities; threatening them with loss of employment, or physical harm, because of
their union activities ; promising money benefits conditioned on their refraining from
engaging in union activities and giving benefits therefor ; and sponsoring or helping
employees to circulate antiunion petitions , violates Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act because
it interferes with , restrains , and coerces employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.9
O Section 7 reads as follows:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor
organizations , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , and shall also have the right to refrain from any
or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be aftected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized in section 8(a) (3).
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly , Walsonavich 's interrogation of employees , his polling them as to their
union sympathies , his attempt to spy on their union activities , his juggling of employ-
ees and supervisors , his threats to curtail production and to sell his business, his
promises of benefit , in return for promises to refrain from union activity , his giving
them wage increases for repudiating the Union , and his assistance in circulating a
petition disavowing the Union is a clear violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
His was an abrasive and insidious pressure on each employee to change his position
and give up his union , and it was a calculated attempt to effectively stop the Union
from ever being able to exercise the position of the duly elected bargaining agent
for his employees . I find from all of his evidence that Respondent has deliberately
and maliciously interfered with, coerced , and intimidated the employees in the exer-
cise of their Section 7 rights and in so doing has violated Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
E. General Counsel's special plea
General Counsel makes a plea for an extraordinary remedy. ' Based upon the fact
that Respondent had deliberately failed to bargain with the Union for a period of
over 6 months , and had used the time gained thereby to attempt to undermine the
Union , the General Counsel requested that Respondent should be required to bar-
gain with the Union for a period of 1 year commencing with the date of any settle-
ment agreement or compliance with this Decision . The General Counsel argues
under the rule in Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785, 786 that "if he
[Respondent] dilly dallies or subtly undermines the Union 's strength" the employer
may erode the union 's strength and thereby release himself from the duty to bargain.
In the Mar-Jac case , the employer bargained only for 6 months and through its
refusal to bargain it took from the union a substantial period of time in which the
union wac at its greate st ctrength Under those circumstances , the Board granted the
union a perioa or at least a year of actual bargaining from the date of the settlement
agreement . In the present case , the Union was the certified collective-bargaining
agent from September 27, 1963. Since then, the Employer has refused to engage
in any bargaining , but rather has attempted to undermine the Union 's stren h
through a variety of violations of Section 8(a)(1). Certainly , under the facts in
this case , I find merit in this position urged by the General Counse'_ and will so
recommend.
Further, after listening to the testimony in this case , I am of the firm opinion that
the policies of the Act will be effectuated if the Board ' were to seek an injunction
under Section 10(j) of the Act . Such an injunction would require the Respondent
to bargain with the Union under penalty of contempt by a U.S. District Court. The
injunction should also prohibit any further questioning of employees as to their
union activities . I will so recommend.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, found to constitute unfair labor practices as set
forth in section III, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described
in section I, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found-that Respondent has engaged in certain conduct interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act
and constituting unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action in order to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) -of the
Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning their union activities and their extent
of union organization in the plant, by assisting employees in withdrawing from the
Union and sponsoring petitions repudiating the Union , by creating the impression
of surveillance and attempting to get employees to spy on union activities of employ-
ees for him , by giving benefits through individual bargaining to employees rather
TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, ETC. 1061
than through their majority representatives, by threats to curtail production to keep
employees from voting for the Union, by threats of physical harm, and by changing
working conditions because of the Union, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sections 8(a) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain with the certified Union the Respondent has thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recom-
mended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Talking to any one of its employees with respect to his allegiance to the Union
or any other labor organization.
(b) Promising benefits to its employees or threatening them with reprisals in
order to induce them to withdraw their support or activities on behalf of the Union
or any other labor organization.
(c) Polling employees with respect to their union desires.
(d) Assisting employees to withdraw from the Union or sponsoring petitions
repudiating the Union
(e) Engaging in surveillance or creating the impression of surveillance.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Bargain in good faith with the Union for the unit described in the Board's
certification, and if wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment are
agreed upon reduce them to writing and sign them. This bargaining shall take place
if necessary for 1 year from the date of this Order and during this period Respondent
shall meet with and bargain with the Union at reasonable times and places.
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its plant or place of business in Pennsylvania,
where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed, be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt theieof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
il In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT talk to our employees concerning their desires to form, join, or
assist any labor organization including the United Industrial Workers of North
America of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf,
Lakes and Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employees nor threaten them with
reprisals in order to induce them or others to withdraw their support or activities
on behalf of the above -named or any other labor organization.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT get anyone else to do what we have promised not to do in the
preceding paragraph.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist United Industrial Workers of America of the
Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and
Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or to remain members of United Industrial
Workers of North America of the Seafarers International Union of North America,
Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , or to refrain from such membership except to the extent that this right
may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
TELESERVICE CO. OF WYOMING VALLEY, JOHN WALSONAVICH T/A
SERVICE ELECTRIC COMPANY, SERVICE ELECTRIC TV CABLE COM-
PANY, INC., TAMAQUA TV CABLE COMPANY, INC., AND SERVICE
ELECTRIC CABLE T.V. INC.,
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Security Building, Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Telephone No. Pennypaker
5-2612, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Peerless Distributing Company and Frank Murphy and Local
7-389, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 7-CA-3975 and 7-CA-3975(2).
November 24, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On November 13, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order in
the above-entitled proceeding,' finding, among other things, that
Respondent discriminated against Charles Chapman, Frank Murphy,
Howard Duffey, and Admiral D. Pinnell in violation of Section
8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act and directing that Respondent make
whole the above-mentioned employees for loss of pay resulting from
the discrimination.
On April 13, 1964, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 of
the Board issued a backpay specification, and on May 6, 1964,
Respondent filed an answer . Upon appropriate notice issued by the
Acting Regional Director, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
George A. Downing for the purpose of determining the amount of
backpay due the four claimants. On June 22, 1964, the Trial Exam-
iner issued his Supplemental Decision, which is attached hereto, in
which he found that the discriminatees are entitled to the following
1 144 NLRB 1510.
149 NLRB No. 96.