Windsor Place Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 445 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

WINDSOR PLACE CORP.
Windsor Place Corp . and Local 32B-32J, Service
Employees International Union , AFL-CIO and
Local 2 , New York . State Independent Union of
Building Service Employees and Factory Work-
ers, N.F.I.U., Party to the Contract . Case 2-
CA-20737
24 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND
BABSON
On 29 April 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Winifred D. Morio issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
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 brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order2
as modified. -
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law
3:
"3. By assisting Local 2 in obtaining authoriza-
tion cards from its employees; by recognizing
Local 2 as the collective-bargaining representative
although Local 2 did not represent an uncoerced
majority of its employees; and by executing a con-
tract with Local 2 covering its employees at 155
East 52nd Street New York, New York, at a time
when Local 2 did not represent an uncoerced ma-
jority and by maintaining such contract in effect,
i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 ( 1950), enfd . 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
We agree with the judge that Hogan's authorization card for Local 2
cannot be used to establish that union 's majority status because Hogan
also signed a card for Local 32B-32J and the record does not clearly in-
dicate that he intended only the Local 2 card to evidence his designation
of a bargaining agent We disavow the judge's finding , however, that
Hogan signed the Local 2 card under circumstances amounting to duress
As there are only two employees in the bargaining unit and Hogan's card
is not valid, we find it unnecessary to determine whether Radoncic's card
should be counted
We disavow the judge's finding that a union must demonstrate its ma-
jonty status before an employer can recognize it Rather, an employer
can recognize a union without such a demonstration , but risks 8(a)(2) li-
ability for recognizing a union supported by a minority of the unit em-
ployees Ladies Garment Workers (Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.) v
NLRB, 366 U S 731, 739-740 (1960) We modify the judge 's conclusions
of law and recommended Order accordingly'
2 We amend the judge 's recommended Order to include an inadvert-
ently omitted provision
445
the Respondent has engaged , and is engaging, in
unfair , labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act."
ORDER
The National Labor Relations board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Windsor Place Corp., New York, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modi-
fied.
Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b).
"(b) Encouraging membership in Local 2 by re-
quiring employees to join that organization as a
condition of obtaining or retaining employment."_
David Pollack, Esq., counsel for the General Counsel.
Joel Spivak, Esq. and Kenneth Meiselas, Esq. (Solotoff and
Spivak), of Great Neck, New York, counsel for the
Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WINIFRED D. MORIO, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me. on February 4, 1985, at New
York, New York. The complaint, which was issued on
December 27, 1984, by the Acting Regional Director for
Region' . • 2, against Windsor' Place - ' Corp.
(Respondent/Company) alleged, in substance, that Re-
spondent, through its vice president, urged and solicited
its employees to sign cards for Local 2, New York State
Independent Union of Building Service Employees and
Factory Workers, N.F.I.U. (Local 2) authorizing Local 2
as their collective-bargaining representative and that
thereafter Respondent recognized Local 2 and entered
into and maintained a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 2, notwithstanding that the Union did not
represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent's em-
ployees. The complaint also alleged that the collective-
bargaining agreement contained both a union-security
provision which required employees to become members
of Local 2 after the 30th day following the commence-
ment of their employment and a dues-checkoff provision.
The answer denied that Respondent committed the
unfair labor practices as alleged.'
All parties were afforded an opportunity to participate
in the proceedings , to cross-examine witnesses , to argue
orally, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed -by both par-
ties.
On the entire record in this case and my observation
of the witnesses and after careful consideration, I make
the following
i During the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the com-
plaint to delete par . 12. The motion was granted
276 NLRB No. 51
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The pleadings establish the parties admit and I find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in coin
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of
the Act
II THE STATUS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The pleadings establish the parties admit and I find
that Local 2 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
The pleadings establish the parties admit and I find
that Local 32B-32J Service Employees International
Union AFL-CIO (Local 32B-32J/Umon) the Charging
Party is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec
tion 2(5) of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent is engaged in the management operation
and rental of apartment houses 2 In the course of its busi
ness operations Respondent has executed collective bar
gaining agreements with Local 2 for some of its build
ings and with Local 32B-32J for its other buildings In
July 1984 8 Respondent assumed control of a building lo
cated at 155 East 52d Street New York New York (the
52d Street location) The present case involves events
which occurred at that location after Respondent coin
menced its operations at the building
Pnor to July the maintenance work at the 52d Street
location was performed by an independent service con
tractor whose employees were members of Local 32B-
32J and were covered by a collective bargaining agree
ment between the service contractor and that Union
The services of that contractor were terminated when
the building was purchased and the contractors employ
ees were not retained 4 According to Ed Benedict Re
spondent s vice president a few days after Respondent
began its operations at the 52d Street location two em
ployees Patrick Hogan and Tom Rogan were hired to
perform maintenance work at the new location Prior to
his employment at the 52d Street location Hogan had
worked as a superintendent for Benedict at another
building where the employees were represented by Local
32B-32J However on July 13 Hogan s employment at
that location was terminated by Thomas Eschmann a
Respondent supervisor because of difficulties that Hogan
had with tenants S Hogan then applied to Benedict for a
position as a superintendent at the 52d Street location
and he commenced work at that location about the end
of July Rogan was also hired about the same time Thus
in late July or early August Respondent had two main
tenance employees at the new location According to
Benedict in early August he either met with or had a
2 Respondent manages buildings for other corporations
J All incidents occurred in 1984
* Respondent did not purchase this building
s It is unclear whether the buildings where Hogan had worked were
owned or managed by Respondent However it is clear that Benedict
was a central figure in connection with both of those buildings and with
the 52d Street location
telephone call from Roy Cottone an officer of Local 2 6
Benedict knew Cottone because he had negotiated col
lective bargaining agreements with him for other apart
ment buildings According to Benedict Cottone told him
that he had authorization cards from the two employees
at the 52d Street location However it does not appear
further action was taken by Cottone at this time 7 Rene
dict did not testify that Cottone showed him authorize
Lion cards in August Cottone s affidavit does not state
that he had a meeting or conversation with Benedict in
August about the 52d Street location According to that
affidavit Cottone s first contact with the 52d location
occurred on October 5 when Hogan called him and ex
pressed an interest in joining Local 2
Benedict was uncertain about when he had the next
contact with Cottone about the 52d Street location but it
was some time before October 12 According to Bene
dict during this conversations Cottone stated that he
wanted to meet with Benedict to discuss a contract but
he could not do so because there were Local 32B-32J
pickets in front of the building Cottone asked Benedict
what he was going to do about the pickets It does not
appear that Benedict responded to that inquiry Benedict
testified that his next contact with Cottone about the
52d Street location occurred on or about October 11
During this conversation Cottone told him that he had
cards from two employees Hogan and another employ
ee whose name Cottone could not pronounce Benedict
assumed that the unnamed employee was Enver Radon
cic who had replaced Rogan when he left in early Sep
tember Benedict testified that after this conversation
Cottone came to his office on October 12 to discuss a
contract During this meeting Cottone told Benedict
that he was familiar with provisions of the Local 2 con
tract but Benedict replied that they had to discuss the
wage issue At some point Cottone called Hogan and
Radoncic to Benedict s office and an agreement was
reached about a wage increase Benedict claimed that he
did look at the authorization cards and he compared sig
natures during this meeting but he did not know whether
he did this before or after he discussed the wage increase
with Cottone Benedict also could not recall whether the
issue of the Union s majority status was discussed before
or after they discussed the wage increase Initially Bene
dict stated that he did not know that Hogan was or had
been a member of Local 32B-32J but he later admitted
that he knew that Hogan was a member of Local 32B-
32J when he was employed at the other location
Patrick Hogan commenced his employment with Re
spondent in January at a building located at 4863 Broad
way and he worked there for a few months before he
was transferred to 4915 Broadway Hogan was a member
6 Although served with a copy of the complaint and a subpoena, Cot
tone did not appear at the hearing nor did he produce subpoenaed
records In lieu of subpoena enforcement proceedings the parties stipulat
ed that the affidavit secured from Cottone in the investigation of the case
would be received in evidence
7 Benedict implied that recognition was not extended to Local 2 at this
point because Local 32B-32J had filed unfair labor practice charges
8 Benedict stated that at the time of this conversation Rogan was still
employed Rogan terminated his employment with Respondent in the
first week of September when he returned to school
WINDSOR PLACE CORP.
of Local 32B-32J while employed at both locations. As
noted, he commenced work at the 52d Street location in
late July. Hogan initially testified that a few weeks after
he started to work at that location, Benedict called both
Hogan and Rogan to his office. When the two employ-
ees arrived- at Benedict's office, Benedict introduced
them to Cottone, whom Hogan claimed he had not met
before that time. Subsequently, Hogan stated that he
thought Rogan took the call and it was Rogan who told
him that Benedict wanted the two employees to come to
his office. Hogan later admitted that he did not know
who actually called the employees to the office. In his
direct examination, Hogan claimed that after Benedict in-
troduced the employees to Cottone, he stated that he
wanted Local 2, he liked it, it was a better Union. After
these comments, Benedict left the room and Cottone ex-
plained the benefits that Local 2 could secure for the em-
ployees and he asked the employees to sign authorization
cards, which they did. On cross-examination, Hogan
stated that he was uncertain whether Benedict said that
he liked or wanted Local 2 during this meeting , although
he claimed that Benedict did make that statement on sev-
eral occasions _
According to Hogan, on October 5 he called the
Local 32B-32J hall because he wanted to know, as a
member,-what was his position. He was told to come to
the hall, which he did and, while there, he signed an-
other card for Local 32B-32J and an enrollment form for
the Union's pension and health fund. Prior to this date,
about September 28, Hogan had paid dues to Local 32B-
32J for the period covering February to November.9 Ac-
cording to Hogan, within a few days after his visit to the
Local 32B-32J hall, Benedict questioned him about
whether he had. any contact with that Union and Hogan
admitted that he signed an authorization card for Local
32B-32J. Benedict asked Hogan why-he had done this
and Hogan responded that he did not know what to do.
Hogan testified' that on October 15 Benedict told him
that he should go with Radoncic to meet Cottone at a
nearby restaurant to sign authorization cards for Local 2.
Hogan and Radoncic went to the restaurant as directed,
and met with Cottone. However, the restaurant was
crowded and expensive and the three left that restaurant
and proceeded to another restaurant- in the vicinity. The
second restaurant also was crowded and the 'three then
returned'to Benedict's office where Cottone secured per-
mission from Eschmann to use a room to talk to the em-
ployees. Hogan and Radoncic proceeded to that office
where Radoncic signed an authorization card for Local
2. "Hogan testified that he did not sign another authoriza-
tion card at that time. i 0 According to Hogan's testimo-
ny, on direct examination , nothing further happened on
that day after Radoncic signed the card. However, on
cross-examination, Hogan stated that at some point when
the employees were in the office with Cottone, Cottone
left the room on two occasions to talk to Benedict about
a wage increase . On the first occasion Cottone returned
6 Hogan claimed that he had been in arrears in his dues and that on
September 28 he paid for those arrears and also paid dues for months of
October and November -
10 Hogan claimed that the only card he signed for Local 2 was the one
he signed in-August. -
'447
with an offer of a $10-a-week wage increase, which was
not accepted. Cottone. then left, allegedly to speak with
Benedict, and he returned and stated that he could only
secure a $15-a-week wage increase and he told the men
that was the best he could do. Hogan then said that was
"okay." Hogan claimed that Cottone told them he would
try to secure a 3-year contract but he did not tell the em-
ployees that a contract had been signed.
Enver Radoncic testified through the use of an inter-
preter. It was evident that Radoncic had a very limited
knowledge, if any, of the English language. According
to Radoncic, on some unspecified day, Hogan told him
that'-. Cottone had called him at work and told him that
the two employees should go to a restaurant to sign a
card.11. He then went with Hogan to a restaurant where
he met Cottone and signed a card. Radoncic testified
that he thought the card he signed was for a union but
he did not appear to know the name of the union. Ra-
doncic could not read the card, and "he just signed what
he was told that is on the paper." Radoncic also claimed
that he did not put the October 12 date on the card. It
,does not appear that either Cottone or Hogan could or
did translate the language on the card for Radoncic. 12
Cottone's recollection of the events which led Re-
spondent to accord recognition to Local 2 differs from
the recollections of Benedict and Hogan. As noted, Cot-
tone did, not refer to a conversation in' August with
Benedict about the 52d Street location. According to
Cottone, his first contact with someone from that loca-
tion occurred when he received, a call from Hogan on or
about October 5, during which Hogan expressed interest
in joining Local 2 and in which Hogan, specifically,
stated he was not interested in Local 32B-32J. Thereaf-
ter, on October 10, Cottone met with Hogan at a restau-
rant, he =explained the advantages of Local 2 membership
and Hogan signed an authorization card for Local 2. At
.this time, Hogan advised Cottone that another employee
at the 52d Street location also was, interested in joining
Local 2 and it was agreed that Hogan would arrange for
Fottone to meet with this employee. On October 11,
Cottone called Benedict and told him that he had author-
izationcards from the two employees and Benedict re-
plied that if the employees wanted the Union, he would
accept it. A meeting was arranged for the following day
to discuss -a contract. On October 12, Cottone met with
Benedict and showed him a Local 2 contract. The two
discussed' wages , welfare benefits, and working condi-
tions. At some point, Cottone called-Hogan from Bene-
dict's office and told Hogan what the wage increases
would be for Hogan and Radoncic and'he asked Hogan
if the increase was acceptable. Hogan agreed and Cot-
tone signed the contract with Benedict. According to
Cottone, at some point Benedict asked him if he had
signed . authorization cards and he replied that he had
signed cards . Cottotie claimed that Benedict did not look
at the cards. "He took my word for this and did not ask
to see the cards." ,
Radoncic referred to the authorization card as a contract
12 Radoncic speaks the Yugoslavian language
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL.LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
According to Cottone's 'affidavit, he had not secured
Radoncic's card on October 11 when he spoke to Bene-
dict and arranged the meeting.to discuss a contract. He
claimed that he made arrangements with Hogan on the
evening of October 11 to meet Radoncic in a restaurant
on the following day before he met with Benedict. It
was at this time that he. secured Radoncic's card.
Cottone claimed that Hogan and Radoncic signed
dues-checkoff forms but the circumstances under which
they signed these forms is unclear from Cottone's affida-
vit. However, according j to Benedict, he called the em-
ployees to his office after he received the forms for
health insurance plans and dues-checkoff authorization
cards from Local. 2 and he gave the forms to the em-
ployees and they signed them at that time. It is unclear
whether this occurred in November 1984 or January
1985. The parties stipulated that as of the date of the
hearing dues had not been deducted.
The document, submitted as the original contract, t a
has.typed at the top that the agreement was, made on
October 12 with Windsor Place Corporation. The con-
tract was to be effective from 10-15-84 to 10-14-87; the
wage' increase for the superintendent was $3.15 for the
first year, $3.35 for the second year, $3.55 for the third
year;' the wage increase for the porter was $2.90 the first
year, $3.15 for the second year, and $3.20 for the third
year. -
Discussion
The General Counsel contends that Respondent, by
various acts, rendered unlawful assistance to Local 2 and
thereafter recognized and entered'into a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Local 2, although that Union did
not represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent's em-
ployees. It is the Respondent's position that the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement is valid on its face and, there-
fore, it is the burden of the General Counsel to prove
that the recognized union did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the employees at the time recognition was
extended and the collective-bargaining was executed.
This, he claims, the General Counsel has failed to do.
There are several significant differences among the
versions given by Hogan, Benedict, and Cottone about
the various events. There, therefore, are credibility reso-
lutions which must be made. In resolving these credibil-
ity issues, consideration must be given to the demeanor
of the witnesses, the weight. of the respective evidence
provided by them, and the reasonable inferences to be
drawn from the record as a whole.14
At some point, Hogan signed an authorization card for
Local 2, but when and under. what circumstances is in
dispute. Hogan claimed that he signed it in August, after
Benedict introduced him to Cottone and expressed his
preference for Local 2. Benedict denied that he intro-
duced Hogan to Cottone in August, although he testified
that it was in August that Cottone first told him that
Local 2 represented the employees. Although not stated
explicitly, Benedict indicated that he did not know how
Hogan met Cottone. According to Cottone, it was
Hogan who contacted him in October and expressed in-
terest in becoming a member of Local 2. I do not credit
the testimony of Benedict or Cottone's statement for
many reasons , including the fact that they contradict
each • other. Hogan denied that he had met or known
Cottone before Benedict introduced them. I credit that
testimony. Hogan worked in buildings where Local 32B-
32J was the recognized collective-bargaining representa-
tive and he was a member of- that Union: • He would,
therefore, have no reason to meet or' know Cottone,. a
representative of a rival union . Nor would 'Cotton have
had occasion to visit the premises where Local 32B-32J
was the collective-bargaining representative. It is also un-
likely that Hogan' would have contacted Cottone in Oc-
tober to express an interest in becoming a member of
Local 2, in view' of the fact that he had paid dues to
-Local 32B-32J for a period of several months extending
into November and also had signed another authorization
card for that Union. The one person who knew both
Hogan and Cottone was Benedict and I am convinced
that he arranged the meeting between Cottone and the
employees, expressed his preference for that Union; and
allowed Cottone to use his premises to induce employees
to sign authorization cards for Local 2.
Respondent argues, however, that even if Benedict did
introduce Cottone to the employees and express a prefer-
ence for Local 2, under Board, law this conduct would
be insufficient to establish that Respondent has rendered
unlawful aid and assistance to that Union. It is true that
the Board has held that it is not "per se" unlawful for an
employer to allow a union representative to address em-
ployees on company time and property. 15 However,
there are circumstances where such conduct has been
found to violate Section 8(a)(1) and (2) when other as-
sistance also has been given. 16 The Supreme Court has
held that the existence of interference by an employer
must be determined by careful scrutiny of all factors,
often subtle, which restrain an employee's choice and for
which the employer may be said to be responsible. 117
The Board, also, has stated that in assessing the impact
of an employer's assistance the totality of the circum-
stances must be considered. 18 - -
There are several factors present in the instant, -case
which were not present in the cases, cited by Respond-
ent. Thus, when Benedict introduced Cottone to Hogan
and allowed Cotton ' to use Respondent's premises to
speak to Hogan on worktime, thereby indicating his pref-
erence for Local 2, he was aware that Hogan had been a
member of Local 32B-32J when employed at other
buildings . Moreover, Hogan testified that Benedict ques-
tioned, him about his, status with Local 32B-32J on or
about October 5 and he told Benedict at that time that
he had signed a card for Local 32B-32J. Based on my
observation of the witnesses, I credit that testimony.
15 Manuela Mfg Co, 143 NLRB 379 (1963)
13 The original contract was submitted by agreement after the close of 11 Hollander Home Fashion Corp , 255 NLRB 1098 (1981).
the hearing and has been given the same number as the document in evi- 17 Machinists Local 35 (Serrick Corp) v. NLRB , 311 U S. 72 ( 1946).
dence - 18 MGR Equipment Corp., 272 NLRB - 353 (1984), Farmers Energy
14 Northridge Knitting Mills, 223 NLRB 230 (1976).- ' _ Corp., 266 NLRB 722 (1983); Siro Security, 247 NLRB 1266, 1271 (1980)
WINDSOR PLACE CORP
Notwithstanding this knowledge, Benedict did not ques-
tion Cottone's 'statement that he represented both em-
ployees when Cottone made that representation in Octo-
ber, although Benedict knew that Hogan` had signed an
authorization card for Local 32B-32J and that Radoncic
could not speak, or understand English. Benedict's only
comment, according to Cottone, was that if that was
what, the employees wanted, he 'would -accept it A
strange statement for an employer who possessed knowl-
edge which' certainly cast doubt' on the Union's alleged
majority status.-
It is obvious that when an employee signs -authoriza-
tion cards for two unions, he has failed to indicate, clear-
ly, which union he desires as his bargaining representa-
tive. The Board recognized this fact and has stated that,
as a general rule, neither card will be counted toward
majority status. Although the Board has stated that the
rule is not an inflexible one, the evidence • to rebut the
general rule "must be of sufficient reliability to leave no
doubt that the card signer intended only one card, and
which card" to indicate the union he designated as his
bargaining representative. i 9 •In the instant case, the avail-
able evidence indicates that' Hogan signed the Local 2
authorization' card under circumstances which amounted
to duress. 20 However, when not under those circum-
stances Hogan paid his dues to and signed an authoriza-
tion card for Local 32B-32J. The evidence in this record
is insufficient to meet the test enunciated by the Board in
order to waive the general rule about dual authorization
cards. Therefore, I find that the 'card that Hogan signed
for Local 2 cannot be used to establish that Union's ma-
jority status. 2 i
Although R""'^--;c testified that he thought the card
he signed had sw..cthing to do with a union, he admitted
that he could not read the card he signed. There ,is no
evidence that Cottone or Hogan did or could translate
the card for Radoncic. Thus, Radoncic signed a card
without understanding its contents or purpose. When a
card is completely unintelligible to an employee there
can be no presumption that he intended the union to be
his/her collective-bargaining representative.22 Further-
more, if signed cards do not represent an informed
choice, assuming an employer's good faith, they cannot
be considered reliable representation of employee senti-
ments when there is evidence of the employer's assist-
ance to the union .23 Accordingly, I find that the authori-
zation card signed by Radoncic also cannot be consid-
ered as evidence of Local 2's majority status.
Benedict extended recognition to Cottone and entered
into negotiations with him without requiring Cottone to
19 Crest Containers Corp, 223 NLRB 739 (1976)
20 Benedict , by,his conduct in introducing•Cottone to the employees
and allowing him to speak to them on Respondent 's property on the em-
ployee's worktime, had indicated to Hogan which union he wanted
Hogan , who had been rehired by Benedict , certainly did not want to
incur his displeasure.
21 1 have found that Benedict was aware that Hogan was a member of
Local 32B-32J at the time he extended recognition of Local 2 However,
even if Benedict had been unaware of that fact, this would not make the
authorization card , which Hogan signed for Local 2, a valid card which
would support Local 2's majority status.
22 Brancato Iron Works, 170 NLRB 75, 81 (1968)
23 Hollander Home Fashion Corp, supra.
449
demonstrate Local 2's majority status Although Bene-
dict claimed that he did examine authorization cards and
compare signatures at some point during the meeting, he
was uncertain whether he did this before or after he
commenced negotiations with Cottone. On the other
hand, Cottone stated that he did not show authorization
cards to Benedict. Benedict "took his word" about the
Union's majority status. I credit Cottone's statement on
this aspect. A demonstration of a union's majority status
in some manner is necessary before an employer can
extend recognition.24 In the instant case, there was no
such demonstration and the Union's claim of majority
status was not substantiated before the negotiations com-
menced In these circumstances, assuming that I had
found the authorization cards to be valid, I would, nev-
ertheless, find that Respondent had rendered unlawful as-
sistance and support to Local 2.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent rendered unlaw-
ful assistance and support to Local 2 by introducing Cot-
tone to the employees and by permitting him to solicit
employees to sign authorization cards for Local 2 on Re-
spondent's property during worktime; by extending rec-
ognition to Local 2, although Local 2 did not represent
an uncoerced majority of the employees and did not
have valid authorization cards from the employees and
by entering into negotiations with Local 2 and executing
a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 2, although
,Local 2 had not demonstrated that it represented an un-
coerced majority of Respondent's employees. It is well
established that a grant of recognition to a minority
union is a clear abridgement of the Section 7 rights of
the employees and a violation of Section 8(a)(1)• and (2)
of the Act.2 s
I further find that Respondent rendered unlawful as-
sistance and support to Local 2 and violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by entering into a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 2 and maintaining said
agreement in force and effect, which agreement contains
a union-security provision -requiring membership as a
condition of employment and which agreement also con-
tains a dues-checkoff provision. Finally, I find that Re-
spondent rendered unlawful assistance and support to
Local 2 by providing dues-checkoff authorization forms
for employees to sign, pursuant to provisions of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend an order direct-
ing it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
More : particularly, having found that Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of their right freely to select their own bar-
gaining representative in that Respondent unlawfully
supported, assisted, and recognized Local 2, I shall rec-
24 Rockwell International Corp, 220 NLRB 1262 (1975)
21 Ladies Garment Workers Union v NLRB, 366 U S 731 (1961), SMI
of Worcester, Inc, 271 NLRB 1508 (1984), Farmers Energy Corp, supra,
Elias Mallouk Realty Corp, 265 NLRB 1225, 1236 (1982)
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ommend that Respondent cease providing such unlawful
support and assistance, and withdraw and withhold all
recognition from Local 2 at 155 East 52d Street, New
York, New York, unless and until Local 2 shall have
been certified by -the Board as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees at that loca-
tion. I shall recommend further -that Respondent cease
giving effect to the contract or agreement with Local 2,
or to any renewal, modification, or extension of such
agreement. However, nothing in my Order shall author-
ize or require the withdrawal or elimination of any wage
increase or other benefit, term, or condition of employ-
ment,which may have been established pursuant to such
an agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within "the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local 2 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By assisting Local 2 in obtaining authorization cards
from its employees; by recognizing Local 2 as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative although Local 2 did not
represent an uncoerced majority of its employees; by
recognizing Local 2, without any demonstration of its
majority status, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees at 155 East 52d Street, New York, New
York, and by executing a contract with Local 2 covering
such employees at a time when Local 2 did not represent
an uncoerced majority; and by maintaining such contract
in effect , Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. By including in the contract provisions for union se-
curity and dues deduction Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. .
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed26
ORDER
The Respondent, Windsor Place Corp., New York,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Assisting Local 2, New York State Independent
Union of Building Service Employees and Factory
Workers, N.F.I.U. (Local 2), by permitting solicitation of
its employees on its premises at 155 East 52d Street,
New York, New York, during worktime.
(b) Recognizing Local 2 as the collective-bargaining
representative of its employees at 155 East 52d Street,
26 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.
New York, New York, without any demonstration of its
majority status.
(c) Recognizing and" negotiating with Local 2 as the
exclusive representative of its employees at 155 East 52d
Street, New York, New York, for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining unless and until such labor organization is
certified by the Board as the. exclusive representative of
the employees pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Act.
(d) Enforcing or giving effect to its collective-bargain-
ing agreement with Local 2, at the above-stated location,
or any extension, renewal, or modification thereof or any
superseding agreement, provided, however, that nothing
in this Order shall authorize or require the withdrawal or
elimination of any wage increases or benefits or terms
and conditions of employment which may have been es-
tablished pursuant to such a contract.
(e) In any like-or related manner interfering with, re-
.straining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from "Local
2 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its employees at 155 East 52d Street, New York, New
,York, unless and until the labor organization has been
duly certified by the Board as the exclusive representa-
tive of such employees.
(b) Post at 155 East 52d Street, New York, New York,
and at its office copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."27 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by. the Regional Director for Region 2, after being
signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately -upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including all places where notices -to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply. •
27 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " -
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 or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Local 2,
New York State Independent Union of Building • Service
Employees and Factory Workers, N.F.I.U.
WINDSOR PLACE CORP
WE WILL NOT recognize and negotiate with the above
named Union as the exclusive representative of our em
ployees at 155 East 52d Street New York, New York
for the purpose of collective bargaining unless and until
such labor organization is certified by the National
Labor Relations Board as the exclusive representative of
such employees
WE WILL NOT enforce or give effect to our collective
bargaining agreement with the above named Union for
the premises at 155 East 52d Street , New York New
York or to any extension renewal or modification
thereof or to any superseding agreement provided that
we will not alter any wage increases or any other bene
fits put into effect as the result of those agreements
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in the above
named Union by requiring employees to join that orgam
nation as a condition of obtaining or retaining employ
ment with us
451
WE WILL NOT recognize negotiate or enter into any
new agreement with Local 2 unless and until that union
has been certified as the representative of our employees
at 155 East 52d Street New York New York
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Local 2 New York State Independent Union of Building
Service Employees and Factory Workers N F I U as
the collective bargaining representative of our employees
at 155 East 52d Street New York New York unless and
until the labor organization has been certified by the Na
tional Labor Relations Board
WINDSOR PLACE CORP