Underwood Hair Adaption Process, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 1017 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

UNDERWOOD HAIR ADAPTION PROCESS. INC.
Underwood Hair Adaption Process, Inc. and Local
1115, Nursing Home and Hospital Employees Divi-
sion of Local 1115 Joint Board
Underwood Hair Adaption Process, Inc. and Local
1115, Nursing Home and Hospital Employees Divi-
sion of Local 1115 Joint Board and Local Lodge
101, International Brotherhood of Craftsmen, Pro-
fessionals and Allied Trades, Party in Interest.
Cases 29-CA-6561, 29-CA-6561-2, 29-CA-6796.
29-CA-6842. and 29-CA-6737
June 12. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed in Case 29-CA-6561 on July
26, 1978, and amended on July 28, 1978, and a charge
filed in Case 29-CA-6561-2 on August 21, 1978, by
Local 1115, Nursing Home and Hospital Employees
Division of Local 1115 Joint Board, herein called Lo-
cal 1115, and duly served on Underwood Hair Adap-
tion Process, Inc., herein called Respondent, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.
by the Regional Director for Region 29, issued an
order consolidating Cases 29-CA-6561 and 29-CA-
6561-2 and consolidated complaint with respect
thereto on September 22, 1978. against Respondent,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint,
and notice of hearing before an administrative law
judge were duly served on the parties to this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, on October 13, 1978, Respondent
filed an answer to the complaint admitting in part,
and denying in part, the allegations in the complaint,
and requesting that the complaint be dismissed.
Upon a charge filed in Case 29-CA-6737 on Octo-
ber 18, 1978, by Local 1115, and duly served on Re-
spondent and Local Lodge 101, International Broth-
erhood of Craftsmen, Professionals and Allied
Trades, herein called Local 101 or the Party in Inter-
est, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for Region 29,
issued an order consolidating Cases 29-CA-6561, 29-
CA-6561-2, and 29-CA-6763 and consolidated
amended complaint with respect thereto on Novem-
ber 13, 1978, against Respondent, alleging that Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5), (3), (2), and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. Copies of the charges, complaint.
and notice of hearing before an administrative law
judge were duly served on the parties to this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, on December 4, 1978, Respondent
filed an answer admitting in part. and denying in
part, the allegations in the complaint, and requesting
that the complaint he dismissed. On December 14.
1978, the Party in Interest also filed an answer admit-
ting in part, and denying in part. the allegations in the
complaint. By letter dated January 29, 1979, the
Party in Interest requested the withdrawal of its an-
swer. By a second letter dated February 1, 1979. the
Party in Interest indicated that it was aware that the
General Counsel intended to file a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment with respect to the consolidated
amended complaint, and declared that it had no ob-
jection to the granting of the Motion for Summar,
Judgment.
Upon a charge filed in Case 29-CA-6796 on No-
vember 17, 1978. and a charge filed in Case 29-CA-
6842 on December 5, 1978, by Local 1115. and duly
served on Respondent through its attorney, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
by the Regional Director for Region 29, issued an
order consolidating Cases 29-CA-6796 and 29-CA-
6842 and consolidated complaint with respect thereto
on December 26, 1978, against Respondent. alleging
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
additional unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and () and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the charges,
complaint, and notice of hearing before an adminis-
trative law judge were duly served on the parties to
this proceeding. Thereafter, by letter dated February
13, 1979, Respondent withdrew its answer to the con-
solidated complaint and consolidated amended com-
plaint in Cases 29-CA-6561. 29-CA-6561-2, and 29-
CA-6737, and declared that it did not intend to file
an answer to the consolidated complaint in Cases 29-
CA-6796 and 29-CA-6842. By this letter Respondent
also indicated that it was aware that the General
Counsel intended to file a Motion for Summary Judg-
ment with respect to the outstanding complaints, and
declared that it had no objection to the granting of
the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On February 28, 1979, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on March 6,
1979, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent and the
Party in Interest have filed no response to the Notice
To Show Cause and, accordingly, the allegations of
the Motion for Summary Judgment stand uncontro-
verted.
242 NLRB No. 162
1017
I) ('ISIONS OF NAFIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the tfollowing:
Board's Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, we
grant the General Counsels's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS FA('I
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
1. ['lii BUSINESS OF RlSPONI)ENI'
Section 102.20 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The Respondent shall specifically admit, deny,
or explain each of the facts alleged in the com-
plaint, unless the respondent is without knowl-
edge, in which case the respondent shall so state,
such statement operating as a denial. All allega-
tions in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or
any allegations in the complaint not specifically
denied or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be admit-
ted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
The complaints served on Respondent and the
Party in Interest stated that unless an answer was
filed within 10 days from the service thereof, "all of
the allegations of the Consolidated Complaint shall
be deemed to be admitted by it to be true and may be
so found by the Board." Although Respondent filed
an answer to the consolidated complaint in Cases 29-
CA-6561 and 29-CA-6561-2, and both Respondent
and the Party in Interest filed answers to the consoli-
dated amended complaint in Cases 29-CA 6561, 29-
CA-6561-2, and 29-CA-6737,' both parties subse-
quently requested the withdrawal of their answers to
these complaints. The withdrawal of an answer neces-
sarily has the same effect as a respondent's failure to
file an answer.2
Since Respondent and the Party in Interest have
either withdrawn their answers or failed to file an an-
swer to the outstanding complaints herein, the allega-
tions to the complaints are deemed to be admitted to
be and are so found to be true .n accordance with the
I Although these answers by Respondent and the Party in Interest were
filed later than the applicable deadline for the receipt of such answers, no
party has objected to the filing of said answers. In view of the absence of any
objections, for the purposes of this proceeding, the) shall be treated as being
timely filed.
2 Image Arts, Inc., a wholly owned suhbsidiary of Maxco, Inc., 236 NLRB
1229 ( 1978); Newark Pipeline Company, 202 NLRB 234 (1973): Nicke Ches-
rolet Sales, Inc, 199 NI.RB 411 (1972).
At all times material herein, Respondent, a New
York corporation, has maintained its principal office
and place of business at 222 Station Plaza North,
Mineola, New York, and has since on or about Janu-
ary , 1978, when it commenced operations, and at all
times material herein, engaged in providing hair re-
placement services and related services, valued at an
annual rate in excess of $500,000. During the same
period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, has purchased and caused to be
delivered to its Mineola clinic, hair spray, condition-
er, shampoo, and other goods and materials valued in
excess of $14,000, which goods and materials valued
in excess of $14,000 were transported and delivered to
its Mineola clinic in interstate commerce directly
from States of the United States other than the State
of New York.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respon-
dent is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
11. '111: I.ABOR OR(iANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 1115, Nursing Home and Hospital Employ-
ees Division of Local 1115 Joint Board, is, and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Local Lodge 101, International Brotherhood of
Craftsmen, Professionals and Allied Trades, is, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. TIE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTIC'ES
At all times material herein, Christine Underwood
has been Respondent's nursing director, acting on its
behalf: and an agent thereof, and the following
named persons have been supervisors and agents of
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act: Cynthia Prudente, Jean Reeves, and Donna
Marretta.
1018
UNDERWOOD HIAIR ADAPTION PROCESS. IN(C.
A. The 8(a)(1) Violations
On or about July 8 and July 12, 1978, and on var-
ious dates during the month of July 1978, Respon-
dent, by Christine Underwood, its supervisor and
agent, and supervisors at Respondent's Mineola
clinic, created the impression that it was keeping un-
der surveillance the meeting places, meetings. and ac-
tivities of Local 115 and the concerted protected ac-
tivities of Respondent's employees. On or about July
13, 1978, and on other dates during the month of July
1978, Respondent, by Jean Reeves and Donna Mar-
retta, its supervisors and agents, and by other agents
and supervisors at a diner near its Mineola clinic,
kept under surveillance the meeting places, meetings.
and activities of Local 1115 and the concerted pro-
tected activities of Respondent's employees. On or
about July 12, 13, and 19, 1978, and on various other
dates during the month of July 1978, Respondent, by
Christine Underwood, its nursing director and agent.
by Donna Marretta, its supervisor and agent, and by
other agents and supervisors at its Mineola clinic, in-
terrogated its employees concerning the employees'
membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy
in and for Local 1115. On or about July 12, 1978, and
on various other dates during the month of July 1978,
Respondent, by Christine Underwood, its nursing di-
rector and agent, and by other agents and supervisors
at its Mineola clinic, threatened its employees with
discharge and other reprisals if they became and re-
mained members of Local 1115 and if they gave any
assistance and support to it. On or about July 17.
August 5, and on various other dates during the
months of July and August 1978, Respondent offered,
promised, and granted to its employees wage in-
creases and other benefits and improvements in their
working conditions and terms of employment to in-
duce them to refrain from becoming or remaining
members of Local 1115, and to refrain from giving
any assistance or support to it, and to induce them to
abandon their membership in and activity on its be-
half. On or about July 18, 1978, and on various other
dates during the months of July and August 1978,
Respondent permitted the circulation of an antiunion
petition among its employees on its premises during
working hours; and by Debbie Vartanian, its em-
ployee and agent, at its Mineola clinic, circulated and
urged and solicited its employees to sign said anti-
union petition on its premises during working hours.
Accordingly, we find that, by the aforesaid acts and
conduct, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
B. The 8(a1(2) and () iolatios.
The following employees of Respondent constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All regular full-time and part-time employees of
Respondent, including licensed practical nurses,
medical assistants, and hair-tiers, employed at its
Mineola, New York, clinic, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, consultants. guards, watchmen
and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11 ) of
the Act.
On or about October 13, 1978, Respondent recog-
nized Local 101 as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees in the unit described above,
notwithstanding that at the time it granted recogni-
tion to Local 101, Local 101 did not represent, and
does not now represent, an uncoerced majority of Re-
spondent's employees in this unit for collective-bar-
gaining purposes, and notwithstanding that a major-
it)y of the employees in this unit had designated and
selected Local 1115 as their representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent, as
discussed infra.
Accordingly. we find that, by the aforesaid acts,
Respondent has rendered and is rendering unlawful
assistance and support to a labor organization, and
thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair la-
bor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
C. The 8(a)(3) and (1) Violations
On or about the dates listed below, Respondent dis-
charged the following employees:
Arlene Bell
Jerilyn Bell
Karen Fischer
Denise Bosch
Amelia Bosch
Leanora Sabbatino
Justina Camera
Gail Mayo
Nancv D'Amore
July 14, 1978
July 19. 1978
July 19, 1978
July 19, 1978
July 19. 1978
July 26, 1978
August 15, 1978
November 16, 1978
December 6, 1978
On or about the dates listed below, Respondent
laid off the following employees:
Robyn Sabatt November 3, 1978
Katherine Grossman November 8. 1978
Nancy D'Amore November 8, 1978
Susan Schlauch November 8, 1978
Since the dates of the discharges or layoffs of the
employees as described above. Respondent has failed
1019
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and refused to reinstate or offer to reinstate or to re-
call said employees to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, except that on or about Novem-
ber 13, 1978, Respondent recalled Nancy D'Amore3
and Susan Schlauch to their former or substantially
equivalent positions of employment. Respondent dis-
charged or laid off the employees as described above,
because said employees joined and assisted Local
1115, engaged in activities in opposition to Local 101,
and engaged in other concerted protected activity.
On or about July 24, 1978, Respondent, by Cynthia
Prudente, its clinical manager, and by other supervi-
sors and agents at its Mineola clinic instituted, an-
nounced, enforced, and thereafter maintained in ef-
fect new work rules, which, inter alia, prohibited
employees from discussing their union and other pro-
tected concerted activities during working hours or on
Respondent's premises, except in the employees' cafe-
teria. On or about August 14, 1978, and at various
times thereafter, Respondent instituted a practice of
administering polygraph examinations to its employ-
ees and requiring said employees to submit to said
polygraph examinations as a condition of employ-
ment. Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above because some of its employees joined and as-
sisted Local 1115 and engaged in other concerted ac-
tivity for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection.
Accordingly, we find that, by the acts described in
the above paragraphs, Respondent has discriminated,
and is discriminating, against employees in regard to
the hire and tenure and terms and conditions of em-
ployment of its employees, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, and has engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
D. The 8(a)(5) Violations
1. Unlawful refusal to bargain
On or about July 13, 1978, a majority of the em-
ployees in the above-described unit designated Local
1115 as their representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with Respondent. On or about that
date, Local 1115 requested Respondent to recognize
it and to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit described above with respect to
rates of pay, wages, and hours of employment and
other terms and conditions of employment of such
3 Nancy D'Amore was subsequently discharged on December 6, 1978, as
described above.
employees. On or about July 13, 1978, Respondent
refused, and since said date has continued to refuse,
to recognize and bargain collectively with Local 1115
as requested.
The General Counsel alleges and we find that by
the conduct heretofore described, Respondent has at-
tempted to undermine the support for Local 1115 and
to destroy the majority status among its employees in
the unit described above, and that, by such conduct,
which constitutes unfair labor practices so serious and
substantial in character and effect, Respondent has
prevented the holding of a fair election among its em-
ployees. Accordingly, we find that, due to such con-
duct, which commenced prior to the date of the ac-
quisition of majority status by Local 1115 and the
request for recognition, Respondent, since July 13,
1978, refused to bargain collectively, and is refusing
to bargain collectively, with the representatives of its
employees, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Unilateral changes in terms and conditions of
employment
As described above, on or about July 24, 1978, Re-
spondent unilaterally instituted, announced, en-
forced, and thereafter maintained in effect new work
rules, including prohibiting employees from discuss-
ing their union and other protected concerted activi-
ties during working hours or on Respondent's prem-
ises, except in the employees' cafeteria. On or about
August 14, 1978, and at various times thereafter, Re-
spondent unilaterally instituted a practice of adminis-
tering polygraph examinations to its employees and
requiring them to submit to the polygraph examina-
tions as a condition of employment, without prior no-
tice to Local 1115, and without having afforded it an
opportunity to negotiate and bargain with Respon-
dent concerning such changes in the terms and condi-
tions of employment of its employees in the above-
described unit.
Accordingly, we find that, by the acts described
above, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.4
I The General Counsel has also alleged that the conduct and acts hereto-
fore found to have been violative of Sec. 8(aX3), (2). and (1) are also violative
of Sec. (aX5). Except the two allegations regarding unilateral modifications
in terms and conditions of employment, the allegations in the complaints, on
their face, are insufficient to show whether such conduct is also violative of
Sec. (aX5).
1020
UNDERWOOD HAIR ADAPTION PROCESS, INC.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5), (3), (2), and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that Respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. The remedy pro-
vided herein differs from that normally accorded, be-
cause, in his Motion for Summary Judgment, the
General Counsel states that on January 31, 1978, he
was informed by Respondent's attorney that Respon-
dent had ceased operations on December 29, 1978,
and had no intention of reopening its Mineola clinic.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged or laid off employees Arlene Bell, Jerilyn
Bell, Karen Fischer, Denise Bosch, Amelia Bosch,
Leanora Sabbatino, Justina Camera, Gail Mayo,
Nancy D'Amore, Robyn Sabatt, Katherine Gross-
man, and Susan Schlauch, Respondent shall be re-
quired to make them whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
from the date of their termination to the date that
Respondent's backpay obligations cease as a result of
its cessation of operations on December 29, 1978, as
provided below. The backpay provided herein shall
be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977)?5
Furthermore, we shall order Respondent to bar-
gain, upon request, with Local 1115 as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
and hours of employment and other terms and condi-
tions of employment. As we have found that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) at all times since its ini-
tial refusal to bargain with local 1115 on July 13,
1978, we shall order Respondent to bargain with Lo-
cal 1115 with respect to such terms and conditions
retroactive to July 13, 1978. As previously stated, the
record indicates that Respondent ceased its opera-
tions at the Mineola facility on December 29, 1978,
'See, generally. Isis Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
and the General Counsel has been informed that Re-
spondent has no intention of reopening its Mineola
clinic. Although the complaints herein have not been
amended to specifically allege Respondent violated
the Act by a refusal to bargain with Local 1115 over
the decision to close or its effects, it has been alleged
that, since July 13, 1978, Respondent has continued
to refuse to bargain with Local 1115. While the facts
here are insufficient to show that Respondent unlaw-
fully decided to close its operations without consulta-
tion with the Local 1115, its continuing refusal to bar-
gain with Local 1115 is sufficient to demonstrate that
Respondent failed to meet its obligation to bargain
with Local 1115 over the effects on employees of its
decision to discontinue operations at the Mineola
clinic. We shall therefore also order Respondent to
bargain with Local 1115 over the effects of the dis-
continuation of its operations at the Mineola clinic. It
is clear, however, that a bargaining order alone can-
not fully remedy the unfair labor practices committed
by Respondent because, as a result of its failure to
bargain with the Union about the effects of discon-
tinuing operations at the Mineola clinic, Respon-
dent's employees were denied an opportunity to bar-
gain through their exlcusive representative at a time
when such bargaining would have been meaningful in
easing the hardship on employees whose jobs were
being terminated. Under the circumstances of this
case, in order to assure meaningful bargaining and to
effectuate the purposes of the Act, we shall accom-
pany our order to bargain with a requirement that
Respondent provide backpay to employees, including
discriminatees, terminated as a result of Respondent's
decision to cease operations in a manner similar to
that required in Transmarine Navigation Corporation,
170 NLRB 389 (1968). As in Transmarine, we shall
require that the backpay for these employees be not
less than the amounts they would have earned during
a 2-week period of employment.6
Accordingly, we shall order Respondent to bargain
with Local 1115, upon request, about the effects on its
employees of the closing of the Mineola clinic, and to
pay these employees amounts at the rate of their nor-
mal wages when last in Respondent's employ from 5
days after the date of this Decision until the occur-
rence of the earliest of the following conditions: (I)
The date Respondent bargains to agreement with the
Union on those subjects pertaining to the effects of
the closing of the Mineola clinic; (2) a bona fide im-
passe in bargaining; (3) the failure of Local 1115 to
request bargaining within 5 days of this Decision, or
to commence negotiations within 5 days of Respon-
6 Despite his dissent in Transmarine, Member Jenkins notes that the rem-
edy there has been accepted hy the courts and the Board and. since some
type of remedy for the misconduct is needed, he is therefore willing to join in
the Decision here. Uncle John's Pancake House. 232 NLRB 438. fn. 7 (1977).
1021
I)l'('ISIONS OF NATIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent's notice of its desire to bargain with the Union;
or (4) the subsequent failure of Local I 1 15 to bargain
in good faith, but in no event shall the sum paid to
any of these employees exceed the amount each
would have earned as wages from the time Respon-
dent terminated its Mineola operation to the time
each secured equivalent employment elsewhere, or
the date on which Respondent shall have offered to
bargain, whichever occurs first; provided, however, in
no event shall this sum be less than such employees
would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of
their normal wages when last in Respondent's em-
ploy.
Effectuation of the policies of the Act requires, in
addition, that Respondent be required, in consulta-
tion with the Local 1115, to establish a preferential
hiring list, following a nondiscriminatory system such
as seniority, for all employees whose employment
rights were affected by the discontinuance of the Min-
eola operations, including the discriminatees, and, if
Respondent's operations are ever resumed in the
Mineola, New York, area, where Respondent is lo-
cated, offer reinstatement to these employees and,
upon request, bargain with the Union.
Having found that Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of their right to freely select their own bargaining rep-
resentative by according unlawful assistance and sup-
port to Local 101 in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1) of the Act, we shall order it to withdraw and with-
hold all recognition from Local 101 until such time as
Local 101 shall have been certified by the Board as
the exclusive representative of the employees in ques-
tion.
Finally, we shall require Respondent to post copies
of the attached notice at its place of business and, in
addition, to mail copies of such notice to Local 1 115
and to all persons employed by Respondent during
the period covered by the commission of the unfair
labor practices herein.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CO()N(I SI()NS ()1 LAW
I. Underwood Hair Adaption Process, Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 1115, Nursing Hore and Hospital Em-
ployees Division of Local 1115 Joint Board, and Lo-
cal Lodge 101, International Brotherhood of Crafts-
men, Professionals and Allied Trades, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All regular full-time and part-time employees of
Respondent, including licensed practical nurses,
medical assistants, and hair-tiers employed at its Min-
eola, New York, clinic, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, consultants, guards, watchmen, and all su-
pervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of' col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. At all times since July 13, 1978, and continuing
to date, Local 1115 has been the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in said unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by creating the impression that it was keeping
under surveillance, and by keeping under surveil-
lance, the meeting places, meetings, and activities of
Local 1115 and the concerted protected activities of
its employees; by interrogating employees concerning
their protected activities; by threatening its employ-
ees with discharge and other reprisals as a result of
their concerted activities; by offering, promising, and
granting wage increases to its employees and other
benefits and improvements in their working condi-
tions and terms of employment to induce them to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of' Lo-
cal 1115, and to refrain from giving it any assistance
or support and to induce them to abandon their mem-
bership in and activity on its behalf; and by urging
and soliciting employees to sign an antiunion petition.
6. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1)
of the Act by recognizing Local Lodge 101, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Craftsmen, Professionals and
Allied Trades, as the collective-bargaining represent-
ative of its employees in the unit described above at a
time when Local 101 did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the Respondent's employees in the unit
for collective-bargaining purposes.
7. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and ()
of the Act by discharging the following named em-
ployees on or about the dates listed below:
Arlene Bell
Jerilyn Bell
Karen Fischer
Denise Bosch
Amelia Bosch
Leanora Sabbatino
Justina Camera
Gail Mayo
Nancy D'Amore
July 14, 1978
July 19, 1978
July 19, 1978
July 19, 1978
July 19, 1978
July 26, 1978
August 15, 1978
November 16, 1978
December 6, 1978
8. Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act by laying off the following named employ-
ees on or about the dates listed below:
Robyn Sabatt November 3, 1978
Katherine Grossman November 8, 1978
1022
UNDERWOOD HAIR ADAPTION PROCESS. INC.
Nancy D'Amore November 8, 1978
Susan Schlauch November 8, 1978
9. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I)
of the Act by refusing on July 13, 1978, and continu-
ing to refuse to recognize and bargain collectively
with Local 1115, pursuant to such request by Local
I1 15, when at such times a majority of employees in
the above-described unit has designated Local 1115
as their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
10. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5), (3),
and () by unilaterally instituting, announcing, en-
forcing, and thereafter maintaining in effect new
work rules which, inter alia, prohibited employees
from discussing their union and other protected con-
certed activities during working hours or on Respon-
dent's premises, except in the employees' cafeteria,
and by unilaterally instituting a practice of adminis-
tering polygraph examinations to its employees and
requiring said employees to submit to said polygraph
examinations as a condition of employment.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent. Un-
derwood Hair Adaption Process, Inc., Mineola, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Creating the impression that it was keeping un-
der surveillance and keeping under surveillance the
meeting places, meetings, and activities of Local 1115
and the concerted protected activities of its employ-
ees.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their pro-
tected activities.
(c) Threatening its employees with discharge and
other reprisals as a result of their protected activities.
(d) Offering, promising, and granting wage in-
creases to its employees and other benefits and im-
provements in their working conditions and terms of
employment to induce them to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of Local 1115, and to refrain
from giving it any assistance or support, and to in-
duce them to abandon their membership in and ac-
tivity on its behalf: provided, however, that nothing
herein shall authorize or require the withdrawal or
elimination of any wage increases or other improve-
ments heretofore granted.
(e) Urging and soliciting emplyees to sign an anti-
union petition.
(f) Assisting and contributing support to Local 101
by recognizing or bargaining with such labor organi-
zation as the exclusive representative of its employees
for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and
until Local 101 is certified by the Board as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of said employees pur-
suant to Section 9(c) of the Act.
(g) Discouraging membership in or activities on
behalf of Local 1115, Nursing Home and Hospital
Employees Division of Local 1115 Joint Board, or
any other labor organization, by discharging, laying
off, or otherwise discriminating with regard to the
hire or tenure of its employees because they join or
assist the above-named organization, or any other la-
bor organization, or engage in concerted activities ftor
the purpose of collective-bargaining or lor their mu-
tual aid and protection.
(h) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local
1115 as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
the employees in the appropriate unit described be-
low with regard to rates of pay, wages, and hours of
employment of employees, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment. The bargaining unit is:
All regular full-time and part-time employees of
Respondent, including licensed practical nurses,
medical assistants, and hair-tiers employed at its
Mineola, New York, clinic, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, consultants, guards, watchmen
and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act.
(i) Unilaterally instituting, announcing. enforcing,
and thereafter maintaining in effect new work rules
which, inter alia, prohibited employees from discuss-
ing their union and other protected concerted activi-
ties during working hours or on Respondent's prem-
ises, except in the employees' cafeteria.
(j) Unilaterally instituting a practice of administer-
ing polygraph examinations to its employees and re-
quiring said employees to submit to said polygraph
examinations as a condition of employment.
(k) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local
I 115 as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the above-described appropriate bargaining unit,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, and hours of em-
ployment of employees, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, including the effects of the clos-
ing of the Mineola clinic.
(b) Provide backpay to Arlene Bell. Jeriin Bell,
1023
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Karen Fischer, Denise Bosch, Amelia Bosch, Lea-
nora Sabbatino, Justina Camera, Gail Mayo, Nancy
D'Amore, Robyn Sabatt, Katherine Grossman, Su-
san Schlauch, and all other employees affected by Re-
spondent's discontinuance of its Mineola clinic in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(c) Establish in consultation with the Union a pref-
erential hiring list, following a nondiscriminatory sys-
tem, such as seniority, which includes the names of
those employees found herein to have been discrimi-
nated against or who were employed by Respondent
at the time of the discontinuance of the Mineola
clinic, and if Respondent's operations are ever re-
sumed anywhere in the Mineola, New York, area it
shall offer reinstatement to these employees to their
former positions or, if such positions no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions there.
(d) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Local 101 as the collective-bargaining representative
of its employees.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Post at its Mineola, New York, place of busi-
ness and mail to Local 1115 and to all persons em-
ployed by Respondent during the period covered by
the commission of the unfair labor practices found
herein copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not atered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint herein be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found.
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Local 1115, Nursing Home and Hospital
Employees Division of Local 1115 Joint Board,
as the exclusive representative of our employees
in the appropriate unit with regard to rates of
pay, wages, and hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment, including
the effects of the discontinuance of operations at
the Mineola clinic. The bargaining unit is:
All regular full-time and part-time employees of
the Employer including licensed practical nurses,
medical assistants, and hair-tiers employed at its
Mineola, New York, clinic, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, consultants, guards, watchmen
and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or otherwise
discriminate against employees with regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment for engaging in activi-
ties on behalf of the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we
are keeping under surveillance or keep under
surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and
activities of the above-named Union and the
concerted protected activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concern-
ing their protected activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge and other reprisals as a result of their pro-
tected activities.
WE WILL NOT offer, promise, or grant wage
increases to our employees or other benefits and
improvements in their working conditions of em-
ployment to induce them to refrain from becom-
ing or remaining members of the above-named
Union and to refrain from giving it any assist-
ance or support, and to induce them to abandon
their membership in and activity on its behalf;
provided, however, that nothing herein shall be
construed as authority or requiring us to with-
draw or eliminate any wage increase previously
granted our employees.
WE WILL NOT urge or solicit employees to sign
an antiunion petition.
WE WILL NOT assist and contribute support to
Local Lodge 101, International Brotherhood of
Craftsmen, Professionals and Allied Trades, by
1024
UNDERWOOD HAIR ADAPTION PROCESS, INC.
recognizing or bargaining with such labor or-
ganization as the exclusive representative of our
employees for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing unless and until Local 101 is certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of said employees
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally institute, announce,
and enforce and, thereafter, maintain in effect
new work rules which, inter alia, prohibit em-
ployees from discussing their union and other
protected concerted activities during working
hours or on our premises, except in the employ-
ees' cafeteria.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally insitute a practice of
administering polygraph examinations to our
employees and requiring said employees to sub-
mit to said polygraph examinations as a condi-
tion of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist the above-named Union, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through a representative of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all employees in the above-de-
scribed bargaining unit, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, and hours of employment of employ-
ees, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, including the effects of the discontinuation
of operations at the Mineola clinic.
WE WILL make whole the following named
employees whom we have unlawfully discharged
or laid off for any loss of pay they may have
suffered as a result of our discrimination, with
interest:
Arlene Bell
Jerilyn Bell
Karen Fischer
Denise Bosch
Amelia Bosch
Leanora Sabbatino
Justina Camera
Gail Mayo
Nancy D'Amore
Robyn Sabatt
Katherine Grossman
Susan Schlauch
WE WILL pay the above-named employees, in
addition to the amounts due above, and all other
employees affected by the discontinuation of op-
erations at the Mineola clinic, normal wages for
a period required by the Order of the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL, in consultation with the above-
named Union, establish a preferential hiring list
following a nondiscriminatory system, such as
seniority, which includes the above-named em-
ployees found to have been discriminated against
or who were employed by Respondent at the
time of the discontinuance of the Mineola clinic,
and, if we resume operations in the Mineola,
New York, area, we will offer reinstatement to
these employees to their former positions or, if
such positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions there.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recogni-
tion from Local 101 as the collective-bargaining
representative of our employees.
UNDERWOOD HAIR ADAPTION PROCESS,
INC.
1025