Willow Maintenance Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 64 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Willow Maintenance Corp . and its affiliated corporations listed
in Appendix A and New York Taxi Drivers Alliance. Case No.
2-CA--8908. June 26, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 19, 1963, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and
recommended dismissal of the complaint as to them. Thereafter, the
Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
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 Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the excep-
tions and the briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.'
1 The notice appended to the Intermediate Report is hereby modified by inserting the
phrase "and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended" after
the phrase "Selective Service Act" which appears in the "Note" thereof.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard before Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel, in New York City
on February 4, 5, and 11, 1963, pursuant to a charge filed October 17, 1962, and
thereafter amended ,2 and a complaint issued November 30, and thereafter amended.
The amended complaint and answer joined issue on whether Respondent 3 discharged
1 As the caption of the case implies, the amended complaint contains an appendix listing
the "affiliated corporations ." I am reproducing the list marked "Appendix A" attached
to this report.
2 All dates herein refer to 1962 unless otherwise indicated.
a The amended complaint names Willow Maintenance Corp. and 34 affiliated corporations
as Respondents . Unless otherwise indicated , the terms "Respondent," "the Company,"
and "the Employer" in this report refer to all the Respondents jointly. The amended
complaint alleges and the amended answer does not deny that Willow and its 34 affiliates
operate "as a single integrated business enterprise."
143 NLRB No. 18.
WILLOW MAINTENANCE CORP., ETC. 65
Jose Torres for union activity , including the distribution of union literature in a non-
working area of its premises outside working hours, whether Respondent maintained
a rule prohibiting union discussion and solicitation in nonworking areas outside work-
ing hours , and whether Respondent engaged in unlawful interrogation of employees
concerning their union membership , activities , and sympathies . At the conclusion
of the hearing, counsel for General Counsel and for Respondent presented oral
argument , and thereafter counsel for General Counsel filed a brief.
Upon the entire record , including my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Willow Maintenance Corp. and its 34 affiliated corporations, herein jointly called
Respondent or the Company, are engaged as a single integrated enterprise in provid-
ing taxicab service in New York City. The Company's annual gross revenue exceeds
$500,000, and it annually receives over $50,000 worth of automobile parts and other
goods and materials directly from outside the State. Upon these facts I find, although
the answer denies, that the Company is engaged in activities affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, the
answer does not deny, and I find, that the Charging Party, herein called the Union, is
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Although the primary issue in this case is the legality of Torres' discharge, Gen-
eral Counsel also introduced evidence of other alleged unfair labor practices. Of
the witnesses called by General Counsel, only three-Torres himself, Rodriguez, and
Figueroa-testified to matters other than those relating directly to Tones' discharge.
Of these, I regard Rodriguez as totally unworthy of belief as both his demeanor and
the content of his testimony left me with the distinct impression he was testifying
falsely,4 and Figueroa testified only that Marty Senft, the Company's agent in charge
of the premises, expressed antiunion views, arguments, and opinions, which I find
were well within the protection of Section 8(c). We are left, therefore, with the
questions whether Torres' discharge on October 25 violated the Act, and whether in
other dealings with Torres prior to that date the Company engaged in interference,
restraint , and coercion violative of the Act.
A. The discharge
1. The events culminating in Tones' discharge
On October 25, between 1 and 2 p.m., Jose Tones, a taxicab driver then employed
by the Company, came to the waiting room (which is more fully described infra)
where he and the drivers normally waited until dispatched with a cab. On this
occasion Torres had with him a supply of typewritten cards, approximately 3 by 5
inches, announcing a union meeting to be held 3 days thereafter. He had handed
each of several drivers a card when he was observed by Sol Russack, the dispatcher,
who is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Russack told Tones that he
could not distribute union cards in that room, but could do so on the street outside.
Torres replied that he had a right to distribute cards in the room. An argument
ensued, overheard by several drivers, who (with one exception, Francisco Tones,
not related to Jose) left the room when Marty Senfit, the general manager, came in.
Senft, upon learning the cause the of argument, told Jose Torres he could not
distribute cards in the room but to do so on the street if he chose. Torres repeated
that he had a right to distribute them in the room, put the cards in his pocket, and
declined to leave. Senft, who had a Polaroid camera, took Torres' picture to have
"a picture of this defiant man sitting at a desk, after telling him in the proper way to
leave." Torres, angered over the taking of the picture, left the premises to telephone
to his lawyer and to the Regional Office of the Board. When he returned, Senft told
him he would not be dispatched with a cab, that he was fired.
The foregoing, in essence, are the salient facts as to what happened on (`ctober
25. Various details such as whether Torres did or did not refer to having had legal
* Rodriguez testified in some detail concerning a peddler who spent 2 to 3 hours a day
2 or 3 days a week in the waiting room selling socks and handkerchiefs. No other witness
seems to have observed this phenomenon , and the kindest word that can be said is that
the mythical peddler was the product of Rodriguez' overactive imagination.
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
advice on his right to distribute , how long the argument with Russack lasted, and
whether Torres raised his voice as much as Russack, are in dispute , but I regard
them as inconsequential . Simply stated , Torres insisted on having a right to dis-
tribute union cards in the waiting room, and was discharged for so insisting.5 The
issue is whether the statute protects such distribution in that room , and we must,
therefore , turn to a consideration of the physical properties of the room and of its
use in the conduct of the business.
2. The waiting room
The waiting room is located at the company premises as are the garage, where
the cabs are repaired and maintained , and various offices. The room in question
is approximately 131/2 feet wide and 221/2 feet long , or slightly over 300 square feet.
Approximately 80 square feet at one end of this room is separated from the rest
of the room by a counter. The dispatcher and cashier work behind this counter;
the rest of the room is lined by clothes lockers, contains an L-shaped waiting bench,
and is open to the drivers as a lounging place while they are waiting to be dispatched.
The Company's cabs are on the street day and night, with a "day man" or a "night
man" at the wheel. The "day man" normally finishes his shift in midafternoon and
returns to the garage, where the "night man" is waiting for the cab. Upon arrival
at the garage, the returning driver goes to the waiting room where he reports to the
dispatcher or the cashier, turns in his meter reading showing the number and length
of his trips, and either turns in the money due the Employer plus withholding tax,
or (as some drivers prefer) turns in all the money collected and receives back his
share The dispatcher will note that the cab has been turned in and will call the
name of the driver who is to take that cab out. This driver presents his credentials
and is then dispatched . The various transactions and the time of dispatch are
recorded, and on some occasions the work of the dispatcher and cashier are performed
by a single individual. The dispatcher also handles telephone calls from drivers who
may call to advise that they are not reporting for work. Normally 77 of the 79 cabs
owned by the Company are in use each day, and the peak load in the waiting room
occurs between 3.30 and 5 p in., when most of the cabs come in. The room is then
used by men waiting for cabs and also by the returning drivers, who compute their
accounts there and then turn in the report to the cashier.
The drivers waiting for cabs spend their time in the room reading newspapers,
watching television (the dispatcher controls the set and turns it off during busy pe-
riods), and conversing with one another. Russack testified that "sometimes they
do hand something out," later explaining that "they might hand out a newspaper
clipping " The following colloquy then ensued:
TRIAL EXAMINER: They sometimes discuss what's in the news, politics or what
have you?
The WITNESS' They discuss everything. Sometimes they discuss about horses,
they will discuss about fights. Among the cab drivers, we are the best philoso-
phers , we discuss all conversations . It's very interesting sometimes. I wish
you would drop in.
TRIAL EXAMINER : Sometimes they get into arguments?
The WITNESS- Not in there If they get into arguments, I tell them to get
out, outside , up against the wall , but not here.
TRIAL EXAMINER: But otherwise you don't put them out?
The WITNESS: Why should I put them out when people discuss what they
want? Some fellows like sports, some fellows discuss other things. Look-
thank God, we are living here.
5 General Counsel points out that Torres did not hand any cards to any employees after
Russack told him to stop, but merely argued his right to do so The contention apparently
is tint Toi res had a Section 7 right to argue his position even assuming, arguendo, that
lie was in the wrong I am inclined to agree with Respondent, however, that Torres stated
in effect that he would continue distribution in contravention of Respondent's orders In
this view of the case, It is immaterial whether Respondent had a rule against such activity
prior to Torres' action I find that Respondent had never theretofore communicated any
such rule to the employees There is some faint suggestion that Torres' discharge was the
result of his insubordinate refusal to leave when Senft ordered him out But the order
to leave was linked to the distribution, and as Senft himself testified, his order "was only
to ro out If he was distributing cards" and "if he did not distribute cards, he was not
ordered off the premises" The case, in short, turns on the validity of the order to
stop distributing In the room
WILLOW MAINTENANCE CORP., ETC. 67
3. Concluding findings with respect to Torres' discharge
Respondent's basic contention is that the waiting room is a working area, and that
a rule against distribution of union cards and against union solicitation is therefore
valid. To some degree, the room is a working area, for the cashier and dispatcher are
at work on one side of the counter. The returning drivers are also "at work" for
the few moments they spend computing their accounts, although it should be noted
that they are paid on a commission basis and not on the basis of hours worked.
On the other hand, for men who use the area to read papers, watch television, or
converse while waiting for assignment, the room is a nonworking area. This mixed
character of the area as both working and nonworking gives rise to the question in
this case.
The cases on the subject, collected in Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co, 138 NLRB
615, deal with the issue in terms of factories or similar establishments with well-
defined working and nonworking areas. In that case the Board, after considering
the controlling Supreme Court decisions on this problem, concluded that an employer
could lawfully prohibit union solicitation only during working hours, but could law-
fully prohibit any distribution of literature in working areas. The Board drew this
distinction in the light of the employer's particular interest in "cleanliness, order and
discipline" in working areas and in the light of the different purposes and needs
attending solicitation and distribution As noted above, the instant case presents
what may be characterized as a blurred situation, an area which partakes to some
extent of working area characteristics and to some extent of nonworking area
characteristics. Likewise blurred in this case is the distinction between solicitation
and distribution, which the Board majority drew so clearly in Stoddard-Quirk.
True, we are directly concerned with distribution of "literature," namely a 3- by
5-inch card identical in size to a union membership card and bearing a typewritten
notice of a union meeting open to all cabdrivers. But the employer in prohibiting
the distribution not only phrased his prohibition in terms of not allowing "solicita-
tion" but assigned as the underlying ground therefor his fear of arguments which
would interrupt work, a consideration as applicable to solicitation as to distribution.
Although the lines drawn in Stoddard-Quirk between working and nonworking
areas , and between solicitation and distribution, do not entirely fit this case, the basic
approach common to Stoddard-Quirk and to the other cases in this area of the law is
equally applicable here, namely, that a balance must be struck giving proper weight
to the employer's property interest and to the employee's statutory right to engage
in union activities . As stated in Stoddard-Quirk, "differing fact situations call for
differing accommodations."
The interest urged by the Company in this case arises from the fact that the dis-
patcher is at work in this room, albeit behind the counter, and from the claim that
arguments arising out of union solicitation and distribution disturb him in his work.
Dispatcher Russack testified that during a union campaign in 1960, discussions
occurred near the dispatch window 6 and the dispatcher would direct the men to
carry on their discussions "away from the dispatch window as far as possible or
take it out in the street ... " General Manager Senft testified that as a result of
the 1960 experience "an unwritten rule was established that there would be no
soliciting on the company premises." In this connection, I credit the testimony
proffered by Respondent's witnesses that no outsiders were allowed to peddle their
wares inside the waiting room.
On this record, however, I cannot agree with Respondent that its interest in antici-
pating disorder in the waiting room overrides the statutory right to engage in union
activity, to the extent of permitting a blanket rule against either union solicitation or
distribution of union literature in the waiting room. Certainly the "littering" aspect
of distribution must be entirely discounted in a room where the reading of news-
papers and the exchange of clippings is countenanced Similarly, in a room where
the men are free to and do discuss all other topics no matter how controversial in
character, the employer cannot muzzle them on the question of organization. This
is not to say, of course, that if a discussion among the men on the subject of unions
reached such a noise level or was accompanied by such commotion as to interfere
with the work of the dispatcher or other operation of the business, the employer
would be required to sit idly by. In this connection it may be noted that Russack,
the dispatcher, drew a rather fine, but to him an apparently meaningful , distinction
a At the time of the 1960 campaign the present waiting room did not exist, and the men
would wait in the garage, where, according to Senft, a group of men engaged in discussions
would, and did, tie up the flow of cars
717-672-64-vol 143-6
,,68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between "discussions" and "arguments." Thus, he testified that in 1960 the men
engaged in "discussions," not in "arguments," over the attempt to organize, and
that in the waiting room the men "discuss everything ... [they] are the best philos-
ophers .... It's very interesting sometimes" but "if they get into arguments, I tell
them to get out, outside ...." But the Company's authority to preserve order in the
waiting room cannot be extended to preclude union activities which are conducted
without disturbing the business, or with no more disturbance than is occasioned by
other activities which the Company permits. In the instant case, Torres was distribut-
ing cards when the television set was on, when some men were reading, when
others were conversing, when the room was far from crowded (as it infrequently
becomes), and long before the peak period of activity which occurs between 3:30
and 5 p.m.7 I find that his activity at that time and place was protected by the
statute, and his discharge for engaging therein, and for insisting on his right to engage
therein, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Republic Aviation Corpora-
tion v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 805.
B. Other alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
Torres testified that one afternoon in late August or early September, Senft called
him into the office, asked him "what is this $3 deal," and, when Torres professed not
to understand, explained that he (Senft) knew the drivers were trying to organize.
According to Torres, Senft continued the conversation by stating that a union would
be bad for the men, as shown by experience in other cities, that broken heads would
result, and that Torres should not sign anything or give the Union any money.
According to Torres, Senft also asked on this occasion whether Torres "was the
one trying to organize the garage," and Torres replied in the negative.
Torres also testified that he had a conversation about the Union with Senft early
in October, when Senft called him to the office, indicated that he knew of the union
meeting the previous night and that 15 men had attended, and asked if one Villa-
nueva (a former employee of Respondent) was the organizer. According to Torres,
Senft also asked, "What's this next meeting that you are going to have in Boston
Road," advised Torres not to speak at that meeting as he •'would make a fool" of
himself, and asked what Torres thought the Union would do for him. Torres
further testified that in the course of this discussion Senft told him not to pay money
"to guys you never know," warned him that as a result of unionization in Boston the
men had to use old taxis for several years, described the result of unionization in two
other cities as "a lot of unnecessary broken heads," and warned that if a strike came
the employer could hold out longer than the men, as the employer could "close the
doors and tell the bank to hold the notes and you guys can't afford that because you
guys got families to support." Torres also testified that in this conversation Senft
observed that Torres had been "acting different lately," talking to his friends in cars
and in corners.
Senft denied having the conversations or making the statements Torres attributed
to him. He also pointed out that he was on vacation in August at the time Torres
ascribed to the first conversation. Senft testified to a conversation with Torres on
or about October 22, concerning the discharge of Rodriguez on October 15, in which
Tories told Senft of the Union's efforts to organize the men, information which, Senft
testified, came as "a complete shock." Inasmuch as the Union had filed a represen-
tation petition involving the Company on October 16, and an unfair labor practice
charge on October 17, accusing the Company of various acts of interference with its
employees' efforts to organize, I find it impossible to credit Senft's testimony that on
October 22 he was shocked by Torres' revelation of union activity .8 I must conclude
either that Senft was not shocked by Torres' statement, or that the revelation came in
an earlier conversation than the one to which Senft ascribed it. On the whole, it
seems both more likely and more charitable that Senft was confused as to dates,
as was Torres with respect to the time of their first conversation. Be that as it
7 Russack testified that Torres' distribution of cards disrupted the work of dispatching
cabs. Apart from the fact that the record shows that cabs were coming and going through-
out the period in question, such interruption as did occur resulted from Russack's inter-
ference with Torres' activity. The record shows that Russack started the argument with
Torres, and had Russack not chosen to do so, he would have been undisturbed by Torres'
activity.
8 Notice of the representation petition was mailed to the Company on October 17; the
charge was mailed on October IS and received by Russack on behalf of Respondent on
October 19.
WILLOW MAINTENANCE CORP., ETC. 69
may, I find upon consideration of all the circumstances, including the demeanor of
the witnesses and the detailed nature of the statements Torres attributed to Senft,
that the conversations occurred substantially as Torres described them on some
dates during the summer and fall of the year.9
For th, most part I find that the statements Senft made to Torres were protected
utterances under Section 8(c). Specifically the comments as to experience in other
cities and other arguments against organization were not violative of the Act. Under
all the circumstances, including the absence of any allegation in the complaint as to
surveillance, I make no finding that Senft's statements that he knew 15 men attended
a meeting and that another meeting was scheduled in the near future violated the
Act. I find, however, that in asking Torres whether he was the organizer, whether
he was going to speak, and whether former employee Villanueva was leading the
union movement among Respondent's employees, Senft attempted to pry into union
affairs and into Torres' activities in a manner not protected by Section 8(c) and
violative of Section 8(a)(1).10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Jose Torres on October 25, 1962, because he engaged in, and
insisted on his right to engage in, distribution of union literature to employees in the
waiting room, Respondent has engaged 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.
2. By interrogating an employee as to the extent of his union activity and as to
the identity of the union leaders, and by invoking and enforcing a rule against
distribution of union literature and against solicitation for the Union in the waiting
room, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend the conventional remedy for the unfair labor practices found,
namely, that Respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, that it rein-
state Torres with backpay computed in accordance with the formulae set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, and that it post appropriate notices. Inasmuch as all the employee wit-
nesses described themselves as working for "Willow," the notice need be signed only
in its name, and the 34 affiliates need not be mentioned therein.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, 1 recommend that the Respondent, Willow Maintenance
Corp., its affiliated corporations listed in Appendix A, and its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because he
engages in solicitation or distribution of literature on behalf of any labor organiza-
tion in the waiting room maintained by Respondent.
(b) Prohibiting such solicitation or distribution in said waiting room, provided that
nothing in this order shall require Respondent to permit activity in the waiting room
which disrupts the operation of the business.
(c) Interrogating any employee as to the extent of his activity on behalf of any
labor organization or as to who are the leaders of the efforts to organize the
employees.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
9 In so finding I do not rely on alleged contradictions between Senft 's testimony and his
affidavit.
10 General Counsel also introduced testimony intended to show that Respondent's treat-
ment of Torres in day-to-day relations changed for the worse after he commenced union
activity. In view of the absence of an allegation in the complaint to this effect , I make no
finding with respect thereto.
70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Reinstate Jose Torres to the position he held on the date of his discharge with-
out prejudice to any of his rights and privileges , and make him whole, in the manner
set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any
loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his discharge.
(b) 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 Torres under the terms hereof.
(c) Post in the waiting room, and at all other places where notices to employees
are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 11
Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing, within 20
days from the date of service of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.12
ii In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "As
Ordered by" shall be substituted for the words "As Recommended by a Trial Examiner of"
in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by a decree of a
United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court
of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be inserted immediately following the words "As
Ordered by."
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read* "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS LISTED IN APPENDIX TO COMPLAINT
Best Cab Corp. Ekle Cab Corp. Walnut Cab Corp.
Drone Cab Corp. Keel Cab Corp. Bew Cab Corp.
Earl Cab Corp. Thil Cab Corp. Web Cab Corp.
Frost Cab Corp. Light Cab Corp. Yule Cab Corp.
Drah Cab Corp. Nyll Cab Corp. Zee Cab Corp.
Harad Cab Corp. Lynn Cab Corp. Ruff Cab Corp.
Haven Cab Corp. Pack Cab Corp. Yam Cab Corp.
Juno Cab Corp. Pilot Cab Corp. Calm Cab Corp.
Joann Cab Corp. Piper Cab Corp. Amah Cab Corp.
Just Cab Corp. Sand Cab Corp. Tymar Cab Corp.
Stuj Cab Corp. Spot Cab Corp. Yim Cab Corp
Inel Cab Corp.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with the National Labor
Relations Act, we notify our employees that:
THEIR RIGHTS under the National Labor Relations Act include the right to en-
gage in the waiting room in soliciting membership in, and distributing literature
on behalf of, New York Taxi Drivers Alliance, or any other labor organzation,
provided they do not create disturbances disrupting the operation of the
business.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of these
rights by prohibiting such activity in the waiting room or by discharging
or otherwise discriminating against any employee for engaging in such activity.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their activity on behalf of
New York Taxi Drivers Alliance, or any other labor organization , or concerning
the identity of leaders of the efforts to organize our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights to form, join, or assist any labor
organization.
MAJESTIC MOLDED PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 71
WE WILL offer to reinstate Jose Torres to the position he held with us on
October 25, 1962, and give him whatever pay he lost as a result of his discharge
on that date.
WILLOW MAINTENANCE CORP.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Torres if he is 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 be not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , Fifth Floor,
Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, Telephone No.
Plaza 1-5500, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Majestic Molded Products , Inc., Lucky Wish Products, Inc., and
Plastics Consolidated Industries and Local 107, International
Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO
Metal , Plastics , Miscellaneous Sales , Novelty and Production
Workers , Local 222, International Production, Service and
Sales Employees Union and Local 107, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2-CA-8775,
-CA-8775-2, 2-CA-8858, and 2-CB-359d6. June 26, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 21, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Union had engaged
in and, were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He also
found that the Respondent Employer had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dis-
missal of such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and both
Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the
General Counsel and the Respondent Employer filed briefs in support
of their exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
143 NLRB No. 22.