Wavetronics Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 238 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

238 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by said Regional Director , shall, after having
been signed by Respondent , as indicated , be forthwith returned to said Regional
Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the date of
service of this Trial Examiner 's Decision , of what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.15
It is further recommended that, unless on or before the expiration of said 20 days,
Respondent ' shall have notified said Regional Director, in writing , that it will comply
with the foregoing recommendations , the National Labor Relations Board issue an
order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
15 In the event 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
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF EMPLOYERS WHO ARE
PARTIES TO OUR CONTRACT WITH ASSOCIATED MILK DEALERS OF DENVER,
INCORPORATED
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 give notice that:
WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain , or give effect to article 20 of our contract
with Associated Milk Dealers of Denver, Incorporated , and with other signatories
to said contract , including Sealtest Foods, a Division of National Dairy Prod-
ucts Corporation, or any other contract provision whereby any such employer
ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from doing business with any
other person within the meaning of Section 8 (e) of said Act.
MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL UNION No. 537,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 609 Rail-
way Exchange Building, 17th and Champa Streets, Denver, Colorado, Telephone No.
Keystone 4-4151, Extension 513, if they have any questions concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
Wavetronics Industries, Inc. and International Union , United
Automobile , Aerospace & Agricultural Workers - of America,
AFL-CIO . Case No. 4-CA-3136. June 3, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and to-ke certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and supporting comments.'
'Having duly considered the matter, Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby
denied.
147 NLRB No. 33.
WAVETRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC. 239
Pursuant to the provisions of 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 Mem-
bers 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 entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision and the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's find-
ings,1 conclusions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, Wave-
tronics Industries, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
2 We note and correct the following inadvertent error in the Trial Examiner ' s Decision,
which does not affect the Trial Examiner ' s conclusion or our concurrence therein: Real's
comment that "You people brought this on yourselves " was made during a discussion other
than the one in which Martin was advised of his job reclassification. It was made in a
discussion which occurred after Real received the Union 's first letter.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on October 18, 1963, by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, a complaint , dated December 27, 1963, was duly issued alleging that
Respondent Wavetronics Industries , Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the
Act. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that since September 26,
1963, Respondent unlawfully has refused to bargain collectively with the Union and
that on October 4, 1963, Respondent discharged, and thereafter has refused to
reinstate , Thomas Martin because of his membership in and assistance to the Union
and because he had engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . Respondent 's answer to the com-
plaint, dated January 4, 1964, in substance , denies that it had engaged in the alleged
unfair labor practices . Thereafter, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
Herbert Silberman at Scranton , Pennsylvania , on February 17, 1964. Oral argument
was heard at the close of the hearing. Briefs have been received from the General
Counsel and from Respondent which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent , a Pennsylvania corporation , maintains its principal office and place
of business at West Pittston , Pennsylvania , where it is engaged in the manufacture of
electronic-mechanical equipment and other products . During the past year, in the
course and conduct of its business operations , Respondent manufactured and dis-
tributed products valued at in excess of $40,000 for the ultimate use of the Army
Quartermaster Corps.' In addition , Respondent 's Scaico division , also located at
1 See Wavetronica Industries, Inc., Case No. 4-RC-5573.
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its West Pittston plant , during the first year of the operations of said division, will
manufacture , sell, distribute , and ship directly to places outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania products valued at in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
Following an election conducted in Wavetronics Industries, Inc., Case No.
4-RC-5573, the Regional Director for the Fourth Region , National Labor Relations
Board , on September 26, 1963 , issued a certification of representative certifying the
Union as the statutory collective-bargaining representative of the employees in an
appropriate unit described in said certificate.
Thomas Martin acted as the union observer at the election and signed the tally
of ballots following the election.
On September 24, 1963, John B . LaEzza, International representative of the
Union , wrote to Respondent 's plant manager, Joseph Fischi. After referring to the
election held on September 18, 1963, and to the fact that a certification was expected
soon, the Union requested "a list of all employees by seniority , classification, rates
of pay and other fringe benefits presently existing ," in order to better prepare them-
selves for the coming contract negotiations , and also requested advice as to a mutually
convenient date for a meeting . In addition , the letter advised that Thomas Martin
and Catherine Olshevski were the elected committee to handle any grievances that
might arise prior to their initial meeting? Respondent did not furnish the Union
with the information requested , did not communicate with the Union regarding a
date for a meeting at which to engage in negotiations , and did not otherwise reply
to the letter.
Within 2 weeks after the election , on Friday , September 27, 1963, Martin was
called into the office to a meeting with Nathaniel R. Real , Respondent 's president
and with Plant Manager Fischi. Real told Martin that because business was bad
his wage rate had to be reduced to $1.50 per hour ( Martin was being paid $1.75
per hour ) and that Martin could either accept the cut in pay or leave . Martin was
given until the following Wednesday within which to advise Respondent of his
decision . During this same meeting Real, after showing Martin the Union 's letter
of September 24, commented that "You people brought this on yourselves." 3
On Wednesday of the next week , Martin telephoned John LaEzza regarding the
threatened reduction in his wage rate. LaEzza told Martin to file a grievance pro-
testing his cut in pay and to ask for a meeting at which LaEzza could represent
Martin concerning the matter . Later the same day Martin spoke to Helen Real,
Respondent 's controller and general manager . In several respects Martin's version
of his meeting with Mrs. Real differs from her version and also from Fischi 's version
who also was present on the occasion in question . I find that Martin 's account of
the event is the most credible . Martin 's testimony , not only on his direct examina-
tion but also on cross-examination , was direct , responsive , and unevasive. He im-
pressed me as sincerely attempting to recount truthfully the events about which he
testified . Mrs. Real in her appearance on the witness stand reflected an excited and
impassioned involvement in the events about which she was testifying . She im-
pressed me as having colored her account of the events to harmonize with a con-
trived picture of the transactions rather than to describe the events precisely as they
occurred . Fischi also impressed me as being an unreliable witness. Among other
things, his hesitation in answering questions which called for answers that might be
2 Joseph Fischi testified that he received the letter . Absent evidence to the contrary,
I find that he received the letter by September 26, 1963, which would have been within
the normal delivery period for a letter posted on September 24, 1963.
3 The foregoing is based upon Martin 's version of the conversation , which I credit.
Real 's and Fischi's testimony regarding the meeting did not differ substantially from
Martin's testimony . Fischi testified that he told Martin that the 25 -cent reduction in
Martin's rate would become effective on Monday . Real did not testify that Fischi told
Martin when the reduced rate would become effective and Martin was paid for the follow-
ing week at the old rate of $1.75 per hour. Neither Real nor Fischi denied that Real had
made the comment with reference to the Union 's letter of September 24 that "You people
brought this on yourselves."
WAVETRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC. 241
in conflict with the testimony of Mr. or Mrs. Real and his alacrity and evident
eagerness to answer questions which raised no such conflict suggested a studied
attempt on his part to avoid giving any testimony which might be prejudicial to the
Respondent's position in this case.
Martin told Mrs. Real at this meeting that he had spoken to LaEzza about his cut
in pay, that he wanted to file a grievance for himself and also on behalf of George
Pateck who had been laid off. Martin also requested that a date be set for LaEzza
to engage in negotiations with the Company. Mrs. Real became incensed and said
to Martin, among other things, that: "As far as I am concerned no union is going
to run my plant"; had she known in advance that the Union was organizing the
employees she would have fired everyone of "us"; and "as far as I am concerned we
will close the plant before you people come in here and tell us what to do." Mrs.
Real advised Martin that he was discharged. Martin was permitted to remain until
Friday, October 4, 1963, when with his final paycheck he was given a termination slip
which stated as the reason for his discharge, "Insubordination-verbal disagreement
with management."
On October 8, LaEzza spoke to Mrs. Real by telephone. He requested Martin's
reinstatement even at the reduced rate of pay and that a meeting be arranged to discuss
and resolve the issue concerning the reduction in Martin's wage rate. Mrs. Real
refused to consider this suggestion. LaEzza suggested that the discussion concerning
the reduction in Martin's pay could be combined with a discussion of other subjects
necessary to reach a collective-bargaining agreement. Mrs. Real replied that she
was busy and was going to concentrate her time on her home and other affairs.
On December 23, 1963, LaEzza wrote another letter to Plant Manager Fischi
renewing his request for a meeting with Respondent and suggesting January 6 or 7,
1964, as possible meeting dates. Respondent did not reply to this letter either. At
the end of January or early February 1964, Mrs. Real telephoned LaEzza. She
told him that she had not received his letter of December 23 until January 3, 1964,
because it had not been promptly forwarded to her from the plant. She said the
problem of getting together to negotiate a contract could take care of itself in the
immediate future. She suggested that LaEzza come to Nutley, New Jersey, to
discuss the preliminaries. However, she indicated that the principal reason for the
telephone call was to obtain his consent to a postponement of the hearing in the
present proceeding. LaEzza refused to agree to the postponement and no meeting
to discuss a contract was arranged.
B. The discharge of Martin
Thomas Martin was hired by Respondent in April 1961 as a shear operator at the
rate of $1.75 per hour. In addition, he performed various other duties including
operating a drill press, spray painting, shipping, receiving, carpentry, welding, and
thermostat assembly. Three or four months after his hire, the Company began to
use a process known as dip brazing. Martin was assigned to this work which re-
quired approximately 2 months for him to learn. The record does not show the ex-
tent of the dip brazing work done at the plant, nor the amount of time Martin spent
at such work, nor how long such work was done at the plant. However, the evidence
does show that dip brazing was discontinued prior to April 1, 1963.4
On Friday, September 27, 1963, Martin was notified that his wage rate was going
to be reduced by 25 cents per hour. Respondent contends that this action was dic-
tated by the fact that a decision had been reached to discontinue dip brazing. Plant
Manager Fischi testified that because Martin was classified as a dip brazer at the
rate of $1.75 per hour and there was no sense paying him $1.75 for a job he was not
doing, he recommended to Real that Martin should be reclassified to a lower rated
position.
Respondent's explanation for reducing Martin's wage rate is unconvincing. Martin
initially was hired to work at the'rate of $1.75 per hour and retained the same rate
of pay during his entire period of employment with Respondent. When Martin was
first hired no dip brazing was being done at the plant. About 3 months later Re-
spondent began to do dip brazing and Martin learned to perform this operation on
the job. Although Martin became a competent dip brazer, no evidence was adduced
indicating that Martin at any time was advised that he was classified as a dip brazer
4 Plant Manager Fischi testified that no dip brazing work was done at the plant (luring
his period of employment there which began on April 1, 1963. and it was his guess that
there had been no dip brazing within the period of 14 months- prior to the hearing in
this case.
756-236--65--vol . 147-17
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that his rate of pay was related to such classification. Furthermore, during at
least the last 6 months of Martin's employment no dip brazing was done at the plant
and during this period of time Respondent-did not find it necessary to reclassify
Martin.5
While Respondent's asserted reason for advising Martin on September 27 of a re-
duction in his rate of pay is unconvincing, other circumstances surrounding the
incident lead to the conclusion that Respondent was motivated to take such action
by its desire to retaliate against Martin for his activities on behalf of the Union.
Thus, Martin was told that his wage rate was being reduced less than 2 weeks after
the election at which Martin had acted as a union observer, no more than 2 days
after Respondent received the Union's letter requesting a meeting and advising that
Martin was a member of the elected committee to handle grievances, and I day after
the certification of representative had been issued. The decision to reduce Martin's
rate of pay following so closely upon these events taken together with the absence
of any credible explanation for such action, with Real's comment that "You people
brought it on yourselves," and with Real's invitation to Martin to quit Respondent's
employs suggest that the dominant consideration upon which was based Respond-
ent's decision to reduce Martin's rate of pay was not economic pressure but a desire
to retaliate against Martin for his union activities and to provoke him into quitting
their employ.
The following Wednesday Martin spoke with Mrs. Real. He told her that he
wanted to file a grievance concerning the reduction in his wage rate and to set a date
for Union Representative LaEzza to negotiate with the Company about the matter.
Mrs. Real became angry. She told Martin that as far as she was concerned we will
close the plant before you people come in here and tell us what to do, that had she
known about the union activity in advance she would have fired everyone of "us,"
and that no union was going to run her plant; and with that she told Martin he was
fired.
Upon the foregoing, I find that Respondent discharged Martin for having engaged
in an activity protected by the Act, namely, seeking on behalf of the Union to make
an appointment for a meeting at which to discuss employee grievances, and in re-
prisal for his membership in and support of the Union.
I find Respondent's defense to the allegations regarding Martin's discharge without
merit. Respondent contends that Martin was discharged for insubordination. Ac-
cording to Mrs. Real, at his meeting with her he told her that he resented his re-
classification, he would not work at a lower rate, and would call the employees out
on strike. Mrs. Real testified she considered these remarks insubordinate. First, I
do not credit Mrs. Real's version of her meeting with Martin, despite attempted
corroboration by Plant Manager Fischi and by Joann Pace. Not only am I con-
vinced that Martin was the more credible witness. but the testimony of Mrs. Real at
the hearing is at variance with the original position she took in this proceeding.
Thus, Mrs. Real on December 16, 1963, wrote a letter to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board in which she asserted as the reason for Martin's discharge the follow-
ing: ". . . he protested his reduction in rate and duties and'stated he would not
work unless he was restored to the rate which he held on his previous position.
This we refused to do, and as he would not work on his assigned duties at the rate
for that job. he was discharged." In this letter no reference was made to the alleged
fact that Martin had threatened to call the employees out on strike. Secondly, even
a «'hcn asked by Respondent's counsel to explain why Martin's rate was not changed
during this period, Ftschi's answer was, "I am afraid I can't answer it." Upon further
questioning by Respondent's counsel Fischi explained that it requires 3 months to train a
dip brazer and as he anticipated that Respondent would obtain dip brazing work he
could not very well reclassify Martin. This explanation ignores the fact that Martin re-
ceived the identical rate of pay when he was first hired and at which time Respondent
had not yet introduced dip brazing work in its plant and also that it was not Fischi's
proposal to discharge Martin but merely to reclassify him so that, unless Fischi had
reason to believe that Martin would have voluntarily quit his employment rather than
suffer a reduction in rate, Martin still would have remained in the employ of the Company
and would have been available to do dip brazing when and if any more such work should
be obtained by Respondent. Fischi's first response, "I am afraid I can't answer it," more
accurately reflects the true state of. facts than Fischi's later contrived explanation.
e Both Plant Manager Fischi and Mrs. Real testified that Martin was a competent em-
ployee. If business considerations had motivated the decision to reduce Martin's rate of
pay, one would imagine that some effort would have been made to Induce Martin to remain
despite the wage cut, rather than baldly to challenge him, as Real did, to accept the cut
or quit.
WAVETRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC. 243
were Respondent's version of the events accepted it would not constitute a valid
defense to this proceeding.- A strike is an activity which is specifically protected by
the Act. An employer may not lawfully discharge employees for engaging in a
strike. Similarly an employer may not discharge employees for threatening to en-
gage in a strike unless the strike is for a purpose outside the ambit of the Act's
protection.
Respondent, by discharging Thomas Martin on October 4, 1963, and by its re-
fusal thereafter to reinstate him, has discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them-by
Section 7 of the Act.
C. The refusal to bargain
Following the election which was held in mid-September 1963, the Union was
certified as the representative of a described appropriate unit of employees. On
September 24, 1963, the Union wrote to Plant Manager Joseph Fischi requesting
advice as to a mutually convenient date for a meeting to discuss a collective-bargain-
ing agreement and also requesting information in order that the Union might better
prepare itself for the negotiations. This letter was received by Plant Manager Fischi
and was read by Respondent's president, Nathaniel Real.7 No one on behalf of
Respondent replied to this letter and Respondent to date has not furnished the Union
with any of the information requested. On October 8, 1963, LaEzza in a telephone
conversation with Mrs. Real again suggested a meeting at which to discuss a collective-
bargaining agreement. Mrs. Real told LaEzza that she was too busy with other
matters and LaEzza was unable to arrange a meeting. On December 23, 1963,
LaEzza again wrote to Plant Manager Fischi requesting an immediate meeting and
suggested January 6 or 7, 1964, as possible dates. LaEzza received no direct re-
sponse to this letter either. However, at the end of January or early February,
LaEzza received a telephone call from Mrs. Real in which she sought his consent to
a postponement of the hearing in the instant proceedings. During this conversation
Mrs. Real, after suggesting that the problem of negotiating a contract would take
care of itself in the future, invited LaEzza to come to Nutley, New Jersey, to discuss
the preliminaries with her. She showed no willingness to meet with him in the
vicinity of the plant nor to discuss anything more than preliminaries.
Respondent contends that it has not refused to bargain collectively with the Union
because no one in authority on its behalf specifically advised the Union that it would
not meet with them. However, the absence of a point-blank refusal to negotiate
does not dispose of the issue as to whether Respondent has discharged its statutory
obligation to bargain collectively with the certified representative of its employees.
The Union on September 24, 1963, and then again on December 23, 1963, wrote
to Respondent requesting a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a collective-
bargaining agreement. Both letters were ignored and were not answered. On
October 8, 1963, LaEzza in a telephone conversation with Mrs. Real again asked
for a meeting. This request was met with the response that she was. too busy with
other matters to meet with him. It was 4 months after the Union's initial request
for a meeting that the Union for the first time was advised that any consideration
would be given by Respondent to meeting with them. Mrs. Real, while concerned
with obtaining LaEzza's consent to a postponement of the hearing in the instant pro-
ceeding. in a telephone conversation indicated that she would meet with him pro-
vided that the meeting would be devoted to preliminaries and would be held in
Nutley, New Jersey. Thus, even then, Respondent was not prepared without sub-
stantial qualification to negotiate with the Union. Apart from Respondent's conduct
during the 4-month period following the Union's certification, which alone evidences
an intention to evade and avoid its statutory duty to bargain collectively with the
Union, for Respondent to condition the commencement of contract discussions upon
the Union's willingness to limit the negotiations to preliminaries and to hold the
meetings in another State removed by some distance from the plant involved does.
not meet the statutory test of good-faith bargaining. Applicable here is the court's:
observation in N.L.R.B. v. P. Lorillard Company, 117 F. 2d 921, 924 (C.A. 6):
The collective bargaining features of the statute cannot be made effective un-
less employer and employees cooperate in the give and take of personal con
ferences. . . the employer must make his representatives available for confer.
ences at the plant where the controversy is in progress, and at reasonable times
and places, so that personal negotiations are practicable. [Emphasis supplied.]
7 On September 27, Real told Martin he had received the letter and showed it to Martin.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 130ARD
Furthermore , the unilateral reduction in Martin 's pay, Respondent's refusal to enter-
tain a grievance concerning this action , and Respondent 's failure to furnish the Union
with information which it had requested in order to better prepare itself for
collective -bargaining negotiations are additional proof that Respondent was avoiding
its obligation to bargain in good faith with the Union. Kit Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., 142 NLRB 957.
I find that Respondent , by reason of its dilatory and evasive tactics, described
above, since September 26, 1963, has failed and refused to bargain collectively with
the Union and thereby has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
:States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that 'Respondent unlawfully. discharged Thomas Martin on Oc-
tober 4, 1963, I shall recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or to a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him,
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned from the aforesaid date of discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period. The backpay provided
herein shall be computed on the basis of calendar quarters, in accordance with the
method prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to such net backpay and shall be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with
the Union, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to bargain collectively
with the Union, upon request, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit
described above, and, if an understanding is reached, to embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
Respondent's unlawful activities, including the discriminatory discharge of
Thomas Martin, go to the very heart of the Act and indicate a purpose to defeat
self-organization of its employees. The unfair labor practices committed by Re-
spondent are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the
Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from Re-
spondent's conduct in the past. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted
unless the Recommended Order herein is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly,
in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act, an order requiring Respondent to cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in the Act
is deemed necessary. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B.
v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All production and maintenance employees of Wavetronics Industries, Inc.,
at its Wavetronics and Scaico divisions in West Pittston, Pennsylvania, but excluding
office clerical employees, technical and professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, since September 26, 1963, and at all times material
herein , has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative, within the mean-
ing of Section 9(a) of the Act, of the employees in the above-described unit.
WAVETRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC. 245
3. By refusing, on and' after September 26, 1963, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Thomas
Martin, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in the case, I hereby recommend that Respondent, Wavetronics Industries,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to, bargain collectively with International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate
unit:
All production and maintenance employees of Wavetronics Industries, Inc., at
its Wavetronics and Scaico divisions in West Pittston, Pennsylvania, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, technical and professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with relevant information re-
quested, including classifications, seniority, rates of pay, and fringe benefits of the
employees in the appropriate unit described above.
(c) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its employees by
discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any other term or
condition of their employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any.labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment with International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit described above,
and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed contract.
(b) Offer to Thomas Martin immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due.
(d) Post at its place of business in West Pittston, Pennsylvania, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an
8 In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board , the words "a De-
cision 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 Is 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."
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.°
9In the event that this Recommended Order is 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
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
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit
described below concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody it in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of Wavetronics Industries,
Inc., at its Wavetronics and Scaico divisions in West Pittston, Pennsylvania,
but excluding office clerical employees, technical and professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity on behalf of International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating
in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ-
ment of any of our employees.
WE WILL offer to Thomas Martin immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or to a susbtantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Section
8(a)(3)oftheAct.
WAVETRONICS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By--------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify Thomas Martin if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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 Securities Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Telephone No. Pennypacker
5-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.