Weinreb Management

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 428 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

428 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Weinreb Management and 32B-32J, Service Em-
ployees International Union , AFL-CIO
Weinreb Management and Weinreb Management
and its alter ego Barniv Security and Mainte-
nance Corporation and 32B-32J, Service Em-
ployees International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases
2-CA-22007 and 2-CA-22203
January 17, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS
On August 4, 1988, Administrative Law Judge
Eleanor MacDonald issued the attached decision.
The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief sup-
porting the decision of the judge.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions' and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondents, Weinreb Management and its alter ego,
Barniv Security and Maintenance Corporation,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b).
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining or coercing employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
"(b) Permit the Union to conduct an audit of
Barniv Security and Maintenance Services' payroll
' We find First Class Maintenance, 289 NLRB 484 (1988), cited by the
Respondent , distinguishable. There, the Board concluded that, even
though there was substantial identity of business purpose, operation,
equipment , and customers between the two entities , no alter ego relation-
ship existed . This conclusion was based on the Board's additional finding
that supervision of the two entities was not substantially identical, the
owners of one did not retain financial control over the operations of the
other, and there was no unlawful motivation in the creation of the second
business . By contrast , the evidence in the instant case is clear that the
two entities are commonly supervised by the trio of Leon Weinreb,
Jacob Weinreb , and Abraham Reiss, that the three exercise financial con-
trol interchangeably over both entities , and that the creation of Barniv
Security and Maintenance Corporation has allowed Weinreb Manage-
ment purposefully to evade its responsibilities under the Act. According-
ly, we find the judge ' s conclusion that an alter ego relationship existed
between Weinreb and Barniv to be fully supported by the record evi-
dence.
records and social security reports with respect to
those classifications of employees covered by the
collective-bargaining agreement between Weinreb
Management and the Union to determine compli-
ance with the collective-bargaining agreement."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
The bargaining unit is all service employees.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees better
working conditions if they refrain from seeking the
Union's representation.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal direct-
ly with our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL permit the Union to inspect our books
to see if we are complying with the collective-bar-
gaining agreement and furnish the Union necessary
information it has requested.
WEINREB MANAGEMENT AND ITS
ALTER EGO BARNIV SECURITY AND
MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Larry Singer, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Morris Tuchman, Esq., of New York, New York, for the
Respondent.
Ira A. Sturn, Esq. and John J. Leo, Esq. (Manning, Raab,
Dealy & Sturn), of New York, New York, for the
Union.
292 NLRB No. 54
WEINREB MANAGEMENT 429
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge
This case was tried in New York, New York on 2 and
11 February 1988 The consolidated complaints allege
that Respondent Wemreb, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act, promised its employees better work
ing conditions to refrain from seeking the Union s repre
sentation and bypassed the Union and dealt directly with
its employees and that Weinreb and Barniv, alter egos
and a single employer, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act refused to permit the Union to inspect
Barniv payroll records and refused to provide the Union
with information relating to the relationship between
Weinreb and Barniv Respondent denies the alter ego
and single employer allegations and denies the other ma
terial allegations of the complaint
On the entire record including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the bnefs filed by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent Weinreb management, a New York corpo
ration engaged in ownership and management of apart
ment buildings, annually derives gross revenue in excess
of $500,000 an purchases materials valued in excess of
$5000 directly in interstate commerce The parties agree
and I find that Respondents are employees engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6), and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background'
The parties agree that for many years the Union and
Weinreb Management have been praties to a series of
collective bargaining agreements The agreement rele
vant to the instant case had a term from 21 April 1985 to
20 April 1988 and covered an appropriate unit of service
and maintenance employees including handypersons ele
vator operators guards doorpersons, porters/watch
persons, watchpersons, security porters security employ
ees, fire safety directors, exterminators and all other
service employees except superintendents Article I
section 10 of the agreement provided that the Union had
the right to inspect the Employers social security re
ports and all payroll records to determine if the agree
ment was being complied with
In order to understand the relevant facts it is neces
sary to clarify the family relationship of the individuals
mentioned in the instant case A family tree would show
' There were no questions of credibility raised with respect to the tests
mony of most of the witnesses The testimony of Jacob Weinreb was
changed in several respects after he reviewed certain documents In those
instances I have credited the later testimony because the earlier testimo
ny relating to matters such as payment for clerical services and the sign
mg of checks was clearly inaccurate
that Wolf Weinreb and Sarah Weinreb are the parents of
Leon Weinreb Leon Weinreb and his wife Sabina Wein
reb are the parents of Isabelle Weinreb Marie Weinreb
Reiss (married to Abraham Reiss) and Jacob Weinreb
The above named family members own about 20 apart
ment buildings in New York City as partners or as joint
ventures The percentage of ownership interest held by
each family member vanes in each building Among the
buildings owned in joint ventures or partnerships by
members of the Weinreb family are the following
145 East 92nd Street
46 East 91st Street
215 East 80th Street
110 East End Avenue
Respondent Weinreb Management manages these four
apartment buildings 2
The Union bargains with the Realty and Advisory
Board on Labor Relations (RAB) a management associa
tion representing apartment buildings, and Respondent
Wetnreb Management has assented to the terms of the
master collective bargaining agreement for the four
above listed buildings
Weinreb Management is a pertnership of Wolf Wein
reb, Sarah Weinreb, and Leon Weinreb The partnership
does not own any buildings At the above listed build
tugs, Weinreb Management employs superintendents and
it employes service and maintenance employees in the
unit represented by the Union pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement as issue
Barniv Security and Maintenance Service is a partner
ship of Jacob Wetnreb and Abraham Reiss Barniv's only
customers is Weinreb Management 3 Barniv supplies
service personnel and maintenance and repairs to Wein
reb Management Barniv employes, as the occasion
arises, painters plasters roofers carpenters doorpersons
elevator operators, guards porters and handypersons
The doorpersons elevator operators porters guards and
handypersons perform work that would normally be per
formed by employees of Weinreb Management and sub
ject to its contract with the Union However when
Berniv supplies employees in the these job categories to
Weinreb Management at the four relevant buildings the
employees are paid at least $100 less per week than the
wage rate specified in the union contract and no pension
or welfare payments are made in their behalf Jacob
Weinreb testified that if Weinreb Management saves
money on wages (by employing Barniv employees) it
costs less to run the four above listed buildings Thus
the owners of the buildings save money on wages and in
creases their profit
The offices of Weinreb Management are at 276 River
side Drive, a building owned by the various members of
the Weinreb family named above, including the members
of Weinreb Management and Barniv Weinreb Manage
ment does not pay rent for its office premises Leon
2 Respondent Weinreb Management also manages the other buildings
owned by the Weinreb family
3 Barnrv is the backwards spelling of Weinreb transliterated from
Hebrew Its correct title is Barniv Security and Maintenance Services
430 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Weinreb is usually present there, as is Jacob Weinreb.
Jacob Weinreb, an attorney, uses the Weinreb Manage-
ment telephone for its business, including Barniv busi-
ness, without reimbursing Weinreb Management for
either rent or telephone costs.' Jacob Weinreb's secre-
tary is on the Weinreb Management payroll. This secre-
tary types any material required to Jacob Weinreb's
work for Barniv.
Jacob Weinreb testified that Barniv's offices are locat-
ed at 320 Riverside Drive in the family residence of
Marie Weinreb Reiss and Abraham Reiss. Abraham Reiss
did not testify in this proceeding. Jacob Weinreb stated
that Reiss has a desk, typewriter, and file cabinet in his
home, but no copier machine. The only telephone line in
the Reiss apartment is the personal telephone of Abra-
ham Reiss; Barniv has no listing with the telephone com-
pany. Jacob Weinreb claimed to see Abraham Reiss on
business at his apartment, but he acknowledged that both
he and Abraham Reiss perform work at 276 Riverside
Drive in the Weinreb Management offices. Barniv does
not pay rent for space at the 320 Riverside Drive home
of Abraham Reiss.
Abraham Reiss has a degree in economics. In addition
to being a partner of Jacob Weinreb in Barniv, he is a
consultant to Weinreb Management. Reiss does the
books for Weinreb Management and he and Jacob Wein-
reb have authority to sign checks for Weinreb.5 In fact,
both men signed paychecks for Weinreb employees.
On occasion Abraham Reiss does the Barniv payroll
and on occasion Leon Weinreb prepares the Barniv pay-
roll. Both Abraham Reiss and Leon Weinreb sign pay-
checks for Barniv employees. Leon Weinreb performs
this work at the Weinreb Management offices. Barniv
does not pay Leon Weinreb for his payroll services per-
formed for Barniv.
Barniv employees Waldemar Waldon testified, without
contradiction, that he was hired to work for Barniv by
Leon Weinreb in the Weinreb Management office. It also
appears from the uncontradicted testimony that Leon
Weinreb attempted to adjust a grievance filed by Barniv
employee Adam Piatkowski.
Jacob Weinreb testified that Abraham Reiss directs the
work for all Barniv employees. However, when asked
specific questions, Jacob Weinreb stated that the supervi-
sor of employees at each of the four relevant buildings
was a Weinreb employee, namely, the building superin-
tendent. All guards, doopersons, handypersons, elevator
persons, and porters report directly to the superintendent
whether they are employed by Weinreb or Barniv. In
addition, the superintendent verifies the work of the
Barniv carpenters, plasterers, painters, and other trades
who work the four buildings. Although Jacob Weinreb
stted that Reiss also checks the work, it is not clear
whether he inspects all the work or some of the work or
how frequently he does so. Further, there is no testimo-
ny in the record that Reiss is knowledgeable in the field
of building maintenance and repair. From all this, I con-
Jacob Weinreb did not describe his professional activities in full. He
does legal work for both Weinreb Management and Barniv.
5 The remuneration paid by Weinreb Management to Abraham Reiss
and Jacob Weinreb, if any, does not appear in the record.
clude that the trades report primarily to the building su-
perintendent, a Weinreb employee.
Barniv purchases supplies for the painters, plasterers,
and other trades. However, Barniv does not purchase
supplies used by the handyperson, porters, and the like,
who work at the four Weinreb Management buildings;
these are paid for by Weinreb Management.
The record shows that several Barniv employees have
transferred to the Weinreb Management payroll. These
include Adam Piatkowski, Waldemar Waldon, and Ste-
pien Lech.
In addition to a complaint from Adam Piatkowski, de-
scribed below, the Union received other complaints
during 1987 from employees who worked at 46 East 91
Street (Kowalczyk), 215 East 80 Street (Waldon), and
145 East 92 Street (Luciow and Borchuck) all claiming
that they were paid by Barniv at less than the wage rate
specified in the collective-bargaining agreement. At the
time of the instant trial, the Union had filed grievances
and the matters were awaiting arbitration.
The parties agree that in 1987 and early 1988, the
Union's accountants requested to inspect the payroll
records of Respondent Barniv for the purpose of deter-
mining whether certain Barniv employees should be in-
cluded in the appropriate unit. The Union renewed its
request by letters of 10 April 1987 and 26 May 1987 to
the Office of Contract Arbitrators, stating "The Union is
seeking an audit of Barniv's books to determine if the
Collective Bargaining Agreement is being complied
with. 116 Barniv refused to permit. inspection of its payroll
records by the Union.
By certified letter dated 12 June 1987, the Union asked
Respondent Weinreb Management for informatioln relat-
ing to the relationship between Weinreb Management
and Barniv. The Union sought specific information relat-
ing to common ownership and supervision, subcontract-
ing, interchange of employees, and use of supplies and
administrative services. The Union did not receive the
information requested.
B. The Alter Ego and Single Employer Issues
The criteria used to determine whether two entities
are alter egos include:
(1) Common ownership and control
(2) Substantially identical management
(3) Common business purpose
(4) Nature of operations
(5) Common premises and equipment
(6) Common customers of similar business and
market
(7) Common supervision
(8) Nature and extent of dealings between the
two entities
(9) Formation of alter ego to evade the Act
See Fugazy Continental Corp., 265 NLRB 1301 (1982),
enfd. 725 F.2d 1416, 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1984), which the
court held that "common ownership is not an absolute
6 This office is established to administer the arbitration procedures in
the collective-bargaining agreement.
WEINREB MANAGEMENT
prerequiste to a finding of alter ego status Crawford
Door Sales Co 226 NLRB 1144 (1976)
In a formal sense , the partners of Weinreb manage
ment and the partners of Barniv do not share any identi
ty However , to let the inquiry end with this statement
would be to ignore the reality of the situation The
Board s criteria speak to common ownership and control
and the cases show that the Board is concerned with the
underlying substance of the financial arrangements be
tween alter egos , not merely with the formalities See
Kenmore Contracting Co, 289 NLRB 336, 337 (1988)
In the instant case, the valuable property consists of
four apartment buildings all owned in various propor
tions by the members of the Weinreb family , including
the partners of Weinreb Management and Barniv Re
spondents presented no evidence concerning any con
tracts or formal financial arrangements among the part
nerships and joint ventures , which own the buildings,
and Weinreb Management and Barniv Certain invoices
and checks were introduced into evidence that show that
Barniv submits invoices to Weinreb Management for
services and that Abraham Reiss writes checks from
Weinreb Management to Barniv But these records were
incomplete and do not reveal anything about the basis of
payment It is thus safe to assume that there are no such
formal financial arrangements and that both Weinreb
Management and Barniv are shells mere instrumentalities
of the Weinreb family, created to manage and service the
20 buildings owned by the family including the 4 build
ings at issue here
It is therefore of no moment that the individuals
named as partners of Weinreb Management and of
Barniv are not the same All these individuals are mem
bers of one family and all have an ownership interest in
the four buildings that constitute the equity being pre
served and enhanced by the operations of Weinreb Man
agement and Barniv The testimony of Jacob Weinreb
clearly establishes that when Weinreb Management saves
money by having Barniv supply service and maintenance
personnel to the four buildings at below the union wage
scale the Weinreb family owners of the four buildings
including the partner of Weinreb Management and
Barniv earn a greater profit
Thus, I find that there is common ownership and con
trol of Respondent Weinreb Management and Respond
ent Barniv
An analysis of the other criteria deemed material by
the Board , shows that the test for alter ego status is
amply satisfied
The testimony shows that Weinreb Management and
Barniv have substantially identical management Hiring
for both partnerships is done by Leon Weinreb The
books for both entities the payroll and the signing of
payroll checks are done by Leon Weinreb and Abraham
Reiss Both men sign checks for both partnerships Leon
Weinreb adjust grievances on behalf of both partner
ships Jacobs Weinreb provides legal advice to both part
nerships Both entities have the same business purposes
to provide service and maintenance to buildings owned
by the Weinreb family The fact that Barniv also pro
vides repair services while Weinreb Management does
431
not is not significant 7 Both Barniv and Weinreb Man
agement occupy the same rent free premises at 276 Riv
erside Drive 8 The same secretaries are used by members
of either partnership The telephone and copier machine
are shared As far as the unit employees are concerned,
the office is at 276 Riverside Drive The service and
maintenance employees of Weinreb Management and
Barniv are directly supervised by the building superin
tendent on the premises , an employee of Weinreb Man
agement Finally , it is clear that Barniv exists as an alter
ego to evade Weinreb Managements obligations under
the Act The evidence shows that doormen elevator op
erators handymen , and porters were paid by Barniv at
wages substantially below those specified in the applica
ble collective bargaining agreement to do work side by
side with Weinreb employees at buildings owned by the
Weinreb family
Respondents have offered no reason for this arrange
ment indeed , it is apparent that Barniv employees per
formed the work in order to save money in the manage
ment of the buildings This end could be accomplished
only through Respondent Weinreb s circumvention of its
duties under the collective bargaining agreement
In reaching my conclusions with respect to the alter
ego issue, I have relied on Mar Kay Cartage, 277 NLRB
1335 (1985), in which family ownership was found to
constitute substantially identical ownership and in which
the Board found that the true purpose for the formation
of [the alter ego] was to evade responsibility under
the Act to bargain with the Union and to honor its col
lective bargaining agreement 277 NLRB at 1341-1342
I have also relied on Big Bear Supermarkets 239 NLRB
179 (1978), enfd 640 F 2d 924 (9th Or 1980), cert
denied 449 U S 919 (1980), which found a sham transac
tion involving family members was for the real pur
pose of achieving a reduction in labor costs through
the avoidance of the economic obligations imposed by its
collective bargaining agreements with [the Union] 239
NLRB at 183 9
The facts discussed above also demonstrate that Wein
reb Management and Barniv constitute a single employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act There is
central control of labor relations over the employees of
both partnerships (by Leon Weinreb and the building su
perintendents) there is an interrelation of operations of
the two entities there if common ownership and finan
cial control and there is common management (by Leon
Weinreb and Abraham Reiss) Accordingly I find that
the service employees of Barniv empoloyed at the four
buildings at issue are employees of Weinreb Management
and part of the bargaining unit covered by the collective
bargaining agreement
7 Barniv did not supply complete payroll and personnel records in re
sponse to the General Counsels subpoena and it is thus not possible to
determine what proportion of Barniv s business is repair work as com
pared to service and maintenance
8 Based in the testimony I find that very little Barniv work is per
formed in Abraham Reiss home at 320 Riverside Drive
'The cases cited in Respondents brief on the alter ego question are
not apposite they all present factual circumstances far different from the
facts in the instant case
432 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondents urge that the employees of Barniv cannot
constitute a single unit with those of Weinreb Manage-
ment because Barniv employs plasterers, carpenters,
roofers, and the like in addition to employees performing
functions covered by the collective-bargaining agree-
ment . This argument is without merit. Manifestly, the
porters, handypersons elevator operators, doormen,
guards , and the like on the Barniv payroll can be includ-
ed in the appropriate unit and the other trades ex-
cluded.'0
Pursuant to the contract, Barniv was obligated to pro-
vide its payroll and social security records to the Union
on request so that the Union could determine whether
the contract was being complied with. It is also apparent
by the same reasoning that Weinreb Management was
obligated to inform the Union, pursuant to its request of
the details of its relationship with Barniv. This informa-
tion was necessary and relevant to the Union's duty as
the collective-bargaining representative.
Therefore, by refusing to permit the Union to inspect
Barniv payroll records and by refusing to provide the
Union with information relating to the relationship be-
tween Weinreb Management and Barniv , Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
C. Allegations Concerning Piatkowski
Adam Piatkowski began work as an elevator operator
at 145 East 92nd Street on 5 May 1985. Before com-
mencing work, he was interviewed by Jacob Weinreb at
the Weinreb Management office. After about 2 weeks on
the job, Piatkowski was interviewed by Leon Weinreb,
at the Weinreb Management office. The latter asked for
Piatkowski's name, address, telephone number, and social
security number and informed him that he had the job.
Piatkowski received a weekly paycheck from Barniv
Maintenance and Security in the amount of $175 for 40
hours of work. It appears that no itemized deductions
were made in his behalf.
On June 14, 1985, Piatkowski filed a grievance with
the Union, claiming that instead of receiving the rate of
$357.42 weekly as specified in the collective-bargaining
agreement he was being paid only $175. After Piat-
kowski filed the grievance, Leon Weinreb came to the
building where he worked. Leon Weinreb told Piat-
kowski that the Union had demanded that Piatkowski re-
ceive a higher wage and that he would be placed on the
computerized payroll and the amount of backpay due
him would be calculated. In September, Piatkowski
began receiving paychecks from Weinreb Management
instead of Barniv.
Several weeks before the arbitration of Piatkowski's
grievance in November 1986, Leon Weinreb summoned
Piatkowski to the Weinreb Management office. Both
Leon and Jacob Weinreb were present in the office
when Piatkowski arrive. Leon Weinreb showed Piat-
kowski a form of agreement and offered him $924. The
10I note that the records submitted by Barniv and Weinreb Manage-
ment were incomplete . Thus, it is not clear how many trades employees
Barniv employs . Further, it is not clear whether, and to what extent, the
plasterers , carpenters , and others work at the four buildings at issue and
to what extent they may work at other buildings owned by the Weinreb
family.
document contained a release of Piatkowski 's claim
against Weinreb. Piatkowski did not sign the document
because he believed he was owed in excess of $924.
Jacob Weinreb then called the Union to find out the
amount owing , but he did not obtain the information.
Piatkowski offered to obtain the correct figure from the
Union on the next day. Then, Leon Weinreb told him,
"it's always better to be on the side of the company, to
be . . . in a good relation to the company" in case Piat-
kowski needed a long vacation to visit Poland or if he
wanted to change jobs within the building.
The arbitrator rendered an award of $4156.14 in favor
of Piatkowski for 17 weeks work at below the contract
wage. 11
The General Counsel alleges that Leon Weinreb's
statements amounted to an attempt to bypass the Union.
I agree . The Union had filed a grievance in Piatkowski's
behalf. The issue of backpay was pending arbitration.
Leon Weinreb's attempt to settle with the employee for a
sum less than that demanded by the Union without in-
cluding the Union in the discussion was a violation of
Respondent's obligations under Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act. Further, Leon Weinreb's attempt to encourage
Piatkowski to settle because he needed to be "in a good
relation to the company" in case he needed a long vaca-
tion or a change of jobs was coercive. Piatkowski could
reasonably infer from Leon Weinreb's statements that he
would receive special favors from his Employer if he set-
tled for an amount of backpay less than that requested by
the Union pursuant to the contract and without the par-
ticipation of the Union at the arbitration Respondent thus
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Weinreb Management and its alter ego Barniv Secu-
rity Maintenance Services, constitute a single employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. All services employees of Weinreb Management and
Barniv Security and Maintenance Services at 145 East
92d Street, 46 East 91st Street, 215 East 80th Street, and
100 East End Avenue are under the jurisidiction of the
Union pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement.
3. The Union is now, and at all times material has
been, the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Weinreb Management and Barniv Security and Mainte-
nance Services service employees at the above lited loca-
tions for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4. Respondent Weinreb Management and its alter ego
Barniv Security and Maintenance Services violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by promising their em-
ployees better working conditions to refrain from seeking
the Union's representation, bypasing the Union, and deal-
ing directly with their employees, refusing to permit the
Union to inspect Barniv payroll records and refusing to
11 The arbitrator found that Piatkowski had been underpaid from 5
May until 9 September 1985. The arbitrator 's opinion states that Piat-
kowski had been paid only $112 per week. This discrepancy was not ex-
plained in the instant proceeding.
WEINREB MANAGEMENT
provide the Union with information relating to the rela
tionship between Weinreb Management and Barniv
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act I shall recommend that they be required
to cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act
Having found that Respondents unlawful conduct was
for the purpose of avoiding and evading their collective
bargaining obligations, conduct which is antithetical to
the entire collective bargaining process and to a primary
policy of the Act, I find that Respondents should be or
dered to cease and desist from infringing in any other
manner on the rights guaranteed to their employees by
Section 7 of the Act 12
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
ed13
ORDER
The Respondents, Weinreb Management and Barniv
Security and Maintenance Services New York, New
York their officers, agents successors and assigns, shall
(a) Promising their employees better working condi
tions if they refrain from seeking the Union s representa
tion dealing directly with their employees refusing to
12 See Big Bear Supermarkets supra 239 NLRB at 185
13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poses
433
permit the Union to inspect Barniv payroll records and
refusing to provide the Union with information relating
to the relationship between Respondents
(b) Infringing in any other manner on the rights guar
anteed to their employees by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Permit the Union to conduct an audit of Barniv Se
curity and Maintenance Services' payroll records and
social security reports to see if the collective bargaining
agreement is being complied with
(b) Provide the information requested in the Union s
letter of June 12, 1987
(c) Post at its facility copies of the attached notice
marked Appendix 14 Copies of the notice, in English
and Polish on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondents au
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond
ents immediately upon receipt and maintained by them
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted 15 Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re
spondents to ensure that the notices are not altered de
faced or covered by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
14 If 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 Nation
al 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
is A Polish translation is necessary because the record shows that
many of Respondents employees are recent Polish immigrants and do
not understand English