World Carpets of New York, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 597 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

WORLD CARPETS OF N.Y. 597
MR. BOWDEN : I think he 's got to finance himself
someway and I want to know-
MR. JONES : We are not here to litigate how
Mr. Shephard financed himself.
MR. BOWDEN : I am exploring to see what the
sources of his income were.
MR. LIPTON [Trial Examiner ]: I will sustain the
objection . You are getting too far afield , Mr. Bowden.5
The court stated : "The employer 's attempted inquiries
on cross -examination concerned Shephard 's sources of
income during the backpay period ; Shephard 's answers
would have been relevant to the material issue whether he
had interim earnings which should be deducted from
backpay.... In addition , since the employer 's questions
about Shephard 's sources of income affected its backpay
liability, the prohibition of cross -examination prejudiced
presentation of its case ." [Emphasis supplied .] Therefore,
in order to obtain "a full and true disclosure of the facts,"
the court remanded the case "to permit the employer an
opportunity to probe Shephard 's other sources of income
during the backpay period."
At the remand hearing , Respondent was given
considerable latitude in cross -examining Shephard.e In
Shephard 's unrefuted and credible testimony , no "other
sources of income" were revealed . Nor was any evidence
adduced or offered which would alter the Board 's previous
backpay determinations.'
In my opinion , Respondent has been afforded more than
a fair opportunity to present its case , particularly in
consideration of the extent of litigation and lapse of time
since the still unremedied violations were committed by
Respondent.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is accordingly recommended that the Board reaffirm
the terms and provisions of its Supplemental Decision and
Order requiring that Respondent pay to
Robert W. Shephard net backpay in the amount of
$7,421.58, plus interest.
" Following this ruling , Respondent continued at length its
cross -examination of Shephard regarding his interim earnings,
and his efforts to obtain and retain employment, during the entire
backpay period.
6 Respondent's counsel persisted in certain questions, which
were permitted in the interests of expedition, even though the
General Counsel and the Trial Examiner indicated that the
information sought was outside the scope of the remand and
otherwise irrelevant to the material issues in the case. These
questions related , for example, to Shephard's withdrawal of bank
savings during the backpay period, the employment and earnings
of his wife, and how many children they have and support.
Note may be taken of a statement by Respondent's counsel at
the close of the remand hearing : "If we had known prior to the
hearing that Mr. Shephard had no other sources of income as he
now answered ... if the Board had allowed him to answer our
interrogatories [requested and denied prior to the scheduled
hearing] we would have moved for a dismissal of the hearing...
World Carpets of New York , Inc. and Allied
Trades Union , Local No. 18 , National
Federation of Independent Unions.* Case
29-CA-582.
March 27,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 15, 1966, Trial Examiner
Marion C. Ladwig issued his Decision 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 Trial Examiner's
Decision . Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a
brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions and
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, World Carpets
of New York, Inc., Garden City, New York, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
* In order to reflect the disaffiliation of Allied Trades Union,
Local No. 18, from National Federation of Independent Unions,
and its affiliation with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, the Board,
on May 17, 1968, issued an Order Approving Stipulation and
Amending Order in which it substituted, in the Order and the
Appendix attached thereto, the name "Local 918, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America" for the name "Allied Trades Union, Local
18, National Federation of Independent Unions."
I Member Zagoria concurs in the result in view of Respondent's
independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner : This proceeding
was heard in Brooklyn , New York , on August 17 and 18,
1966 ,1 pursuant to a charge filed on May 5 by Allied
Trades Union , Local No. 18 , National Federation of
Independent Unions, herein called the Union, and a
complaint issued on June 30 and amended on July 27. The
case involves primarily the issues (a) whether the
Respondent , World Carpets of New York , Inc., herein
called the Company , refused the Union 's May 2 bargaining
request because of a good -faith doubt of the Union's
majority, and (b) whether the Company thereafter violated
Section 8 (a)(1) by threatening striking employees with the
shutdown of the warehouse and by promising them a wage
increase if they would abandon the strike.
Upon the entire record , including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses , and, after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Company is a New York corporatioi , and is engaged
in the distribution of carpeting and related products at its
warehouse in Garden City, New York, whore it annually
receives goods valued in excess of $50 ,000 directly from
outside that State. The Company admits, and I find, that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor orgai ization within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. May 2 Request for Recognition
On April 27, four of the Company 's five hourly paid
warehouse employees at the Garden City warehouse
signed authorization cards, designating the Union as their
collective -bargaining representative . The status of the
salaried warehouse foreman and assistant foreman is
discussed later.
On May 2, Union Representatives Joseph Barresi and
George Paliotta went to the warehouse and requested that
Warehouse Manager Charles Alvin sign a stipulation,
recognizing the Union as the collective - bargaining agent of
the warehouse employees. Barresi stated that he had
authorization cards signed by a majority of them. Alvin
asked if he could see the cards and, in Alvin ' s words,
"Barresi told me if I wanted to see the cards it would have
to be at the National Labor Relations Board ." Alvin stated
that he did not have the authority to sign any such
document , and stated that he would have to call his home
office in Dalton , Georgia. Barresi telephoned Union
President Jack Fechter for instructions . Fechter asked to
speak directly to Alvin and told him, in Alvin's words,
"When you talk to your officials in Dalton , Georgia, let
them know that we are threatening you with pulling out the
men." Thereupon , Alvin began trying to contact National
Warehouse Manager Ralph Talley, first in Dalton, and
then in California . When Talley returned the call later in
the morning and spoke to Alvin , Talley told him (in Alvin's
words), "do what you can about giving us a little time so we
can get a report to the president of the company , or give us
time to think it over, but don't sign anything ." Then,
speaking directly to Barresi, Talley stated ( in Barresi's
words ), "I haven't got the authority either. I have to call up
Georgia."
Later in the day, Warehouse Manager Alvin again
talked with National Warehouse Manager Talley, this time
outside the presence of the union representatives.
According to Alvin , Talley "suggested that I try to get
additional time from the union delegates until a report can
be submitted to Dalton, Georgia , as Shaheen does not want
a union in that warehouse ." [Emphasis supplied.]
(Shaheem Shaheen is president of the Company and five
other corporations , each of which distributes and
warehouses carpets manufactured in Dalton, Georgia, by
the parent corporation , World Carpets , Inc., of which
Shaheen is also president.)
Warehouse Manager Alvin returned to the conference
room and gave the Company 's answer to the two union
representatives , who had been waiting several hours for
the reply. In Barresi 's words:
Alvin told me that he had just spoken to Talley, and
Talley had told him that the office in Georgia had said
that the Company did not recognize any union, to let
them strike. [Emphasis supplied.]
(This version of what Alvin said was contained in a Board
affidavit which Barresi gave on May 9, only 7 days after
the event . When Barresi was being cross - examined, the
company counsel quoted to him this part of the affidavit,
and Barresi confirmed that this was what Alvin had said. 1
credit this version, which was not denied by Alvin.)
B. The Strike for Recognition
As earlier threatened , the union representatives
immediately called a strike for recognition. Three
employees, a majority of the five hourly employees, left
their work and began picketing. Employee Robert Reid,
the fourth employee who signed an authorization card but
who was absent on May 2 , first learned about the strike on
May 3, when he saw the picket liae on the way to work. He
honored the picket line and started picketing. Warehouse
Manager Alvin admitted seeing the four employees
picketing on May 3, before any replacements had been
hired.
There is no evidence that the Company at any time
questioned or doubted the majority status of the Union.
Warehouse Manager Alvin admitted that sometime after
the strike bagan, he talked again with National Warehouse
Manager Talley, who told him that among the reasons
President Shaheen did not want the Union in the New
York warehouse was that Shaheen was afraid that
unionization would spread to his other warehouses
C. Alleged Promises and Threats
On May 18 or 19, after two of the four striking
employees had abandoned the strike , Warehouse Foreman
Richard Pollock accosted employee Robert Granado at the
picket line . According to Granado's credited testimony,
Pollock asked him if he was willing to come back to work,
and Granado asked: "What 's in it for me? I mean do I
have to come back to the same thing I would be doing
before?" Pollock answered: "No, I am going to get you a
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to the year 1966.
WORLD CARPETS OF N.Y. 599
hundred dollars a week after everything is settled (or
settled in court ). . . . It's no use for you being out here.
You're never going to win ." They agreed to meet later that
afternoon at a tavern , with the other striking employee,
Reid.
Pollock met Granado and Reid at the tavern , told them,
"You're never going to win," asked them to return to work,
and promised : "I'll get you a hundred dollars after
everything is settled in court. I won't be able to do this
before that ." Granado asked why they could not win if they
stayed out long enough , and Pollock answered that "he
had heard Shaheen had said he would close the warehouse
down and ship directly from Georgia or open a new
warehouse up in Jersey before he would let the Union in."
Granado further recalled that Pollock "said something
about we shouldn't be angry when we find out how much
the other fellows are making." When asked how much that
was, Pollock said he was not sure, but that the
warehousemen were making somewhere from $100 to $120
a week . (At the time of the strike , Granado was making $80
a week and Reid $70.) On May 20, Pollock again talked to
the two employees , and they agreed to return to work
Foreman Pollock admitted much of this testimony. He
testified that he approached Granado and asked if they
would like to come back to work. Later that day he met
Granado and Reid at the tavern and asked them if they
would like to return at their same rate of pay ; told them
that "After everything was settled I would try to get them
more money ... the same as anyone else was making,"
which he believed was $100 a week. He recalled that he
told the employees that "Maybe if the union got in they
might close the warehouse and move to Jersey or Georgia
or Pennsylvania ," although he claimed that this was "just
conversation ," and that he told them "I had heard it going
around ." He further testified that he might have said that
if the Company shut down, it might ship directly from
Georgia to the Company' s customers.
Contrary to the Company's contention that Pollock was
acting "on his own " and that employees Granado and Reid
"did not regard Pollock's promise ... other than Pollock's
own personal feelings and obviously not those of the
Company," I find that Pollock apparently spoke for the
Company, and that the promise and threat , to induce these
two remaining strikers to abandon the strike , coerced the
employees and interfered with their Section 7 rights, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
D. Appropriate Bargaining Unit
The parties agree that an appropriate unit is:
All warehouse employees of Respondent , employed at
its Garden City warehouse , exclusive of office clerical
employees , salesmen , guards and all supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.
The parties further agree that the five hourly employees
would be included in this unit , and that Foreman Pollock is
a supervisor and would be excluded. However, the General
Counsel contends , contrary to the Company, that
Assistant Warehouse Foreman Wendell Dow should also
be excluded as a supervisor.
Before Dow was employed , Warehouse Manager Alvin
left the supervision of the hourly warehouse employees
principally to Pollock , the warehouse foreman. Pollock
hired employees , gave practically all their instructions,
and made wage recommendations which Alvin generally
followed after consultation with "higher authority" in
Dalton , Georgia.
On April 18 , 2 weeks before the recognition strike, Alvin
employed Dow as Pollock ' s assistant , giving him as a
starting salary the same salary that Pollock was being
paid, $150 a week. At that time, all of the hourly employees
were being paid wages of $70 or $75 a week , except one
(who did not sign a union card or go on strike ) who was
paid $90 a week . Dow had been an officer in the U.S. Army
and had had supervisory experience . Alvin testified that
he considered Dow "different than the ordinary
warehouseman ," stating that because of Dow's
background , he employed Dow to assist Pollock and to
replace Pollock when Pollock was out for an hour or two,
or absent because of vacation , sickness , or other
contingency.
Within his first 3 days on the job, Dow approached
employee Granado , asked him how much he was making,
and upon being told $75 a week , said : "I know it is pretty
rough for you. I have arranged for you to get a raise. I don't
know how much it will be." On April 20, Granado received
a wage increase , from $75 to $80, effective April 15.
(Although the Company contends that Dow was not
responsible for the raise , the Company did not call Dow as
a witness to deny Granado 's testimony.)
Dow, who began performing a substantial part of the
clerical work at a separate desk next to Pollock's, was
placed on the telephone intercommunication system (one
bell for Pollock , two bells for Dow, and three for
Warehouse Manager Alvin ) Pollock began discussing the
employees ' work with Dow and Alvin. Explaining Dow's
role in these conversations , Pollock testified that Dow
"was staying with me to more or less learn the ropes."
Although the work in the warehouse is mostly routine,
Dow began giving orders to the employees after his first
week of employment . Since then Dow, as well as Pollock,
has told the employees what to do and when to do it, and
has criticized their work , as when they drive the Hyster
carpet lift too fast . However, when both of them are there,
Pollock does most of the directing of the work , does not
cut or load carpets , and spends most of his time doing
clerical work , whereas Dow works alongside the hourly
employees most of the day. Dow replaces Pollock and
directs the employees in the same way as Pollock does
when Pollock is on vacation.
The Company contends that because of the routine
nature of the work and the size of the crew , it would be
"illogical" for Dow to be a supervisor : that there was "no
room for a second supervisor" in the warehouse. But the
question is whether Dow possessed supervisory authority
on May 2-not whether Warehouse Manager Alvin was
wise in employing an assistant for Pollock, who was
supervising only five employees.
Weighing all the evidence , I am convinced that, at the
time in question, Dow possessed at least the authority to
responsibly direct the work , both when Pollock was and
was not there. His salary , the same as that of the admitted
supervisor , was twice the weekly wage rate of all but one
of the warehouse employees. Shortly after his
employment , he assumed the role of a supervisor and told
an employee that he had obtained a wage increase for the
employee. I do not perceive any reason for his having
assumed such a role unless Warehouse Manager Alvin had
discussed the matter with him and had assigned him some
supervisory authority. I have consic ered the fact that the
Company did not call Dow as a witness to deny this
testimony , given by the first witness on the first day of the
hearing. Also , I have given due consideration to the fact
that Alvin admittedly employed Dow, because of his
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisory experience, to assist Pollock and to replace
Pollock in the latter's absence. I therefore find that Dow
was a supervisor and would be excluded from the
bargaining unit at the time the Union requested
recognition for a unit of warehouse employees.
E. Concluding Findings
When the Union requested recognition on May 2, it
represented a clear majority (four out of five) of the
employees in an admittedly appropriate bargaining unit.
There is no evidence that the Company at any time
questioned or doubted the Union's majority status. If there
had been any doubt, it would have been dispelled
immediately after the rejection of the bargaining request,
when a majority of the employees struck for recognition
and began picketing William S. Shurett, d/b/a Greyhound
Terminal, 137 NLRB 87, 90, 92-93 (1962), enfd. 314 F.2d
43, 44 (C A. 5, 1963); N.L.R.B. v. Comfort, Inc., 365 F.2d
867 (C.A. 8, 1966), 63 LRRM 2118, 2125.
Unless there is a good-faith doubt of a union's majority
status, an employer's bargaining obligation is clear. As
stated in N L.R.B. v Philamon Laboratories, Inc., 298 F.2d
176, 179 (C.A. 2, 1962), cert. denied 370 U.S. 919•
The act imposes a duty to bargain in good faith
upon request whenever a labor organization has been
designated by a majority of employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit The employer must
recognize and bargain with such an organization
whether or not it has been certified by the Labor
Board. United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas
Oak Flooring Co , 351 U.S. 62 ... (1956); N.L.R.B. v.
Sunrise Lumber & Trim Corp., 241 F.2d 620 (2 Cir.,
1957), cert. denied 355 U S. 818... (1957). To be sure,
an employer laboring under a good faith doubt as to a
union's majority status need not extend recognition.
Nevertheless, in the absence of such a doubt, the
employer has no vested right to an election. N.L.R.B.
v. Trimfit of California, 211 F.2d 206 (9 Cir., 1954).
Belatedly in its brief, the Company deduces that it must
have had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status,
from the fact that the circumstances of the bargaining
request would, it argues, "preclude" a contrary finding.
However, as in Scobell Chemical Company, Inc. v.
N.L.R.B., 267 F.2d 922, 926 (C A. 2, 1959), at no time did
the Company "base its refusal to recognize and bargain
with the Union upon any expressed doubt that the Union
represented a majority." Moreover, the considerations
given by National Warehouse Manager Talley to
Warehouse Manager Alvin immediately before the
rejection of the recognition request, and later after the
recognition strike began, demonstrated a different
motivation. Thus, before the recognition rejection, Talley
mentioned no doubt of the Union's majority status, but
stated that President Shaheen "does not want a union in
that warehouse." Later during the strike, Talley told Alvin
that among the reasons President Shaheen did not want
the Union in the New York warehouse was that Shaheen
was afraid that unionization would spread to his other
warehouses. Furthermore, the Company's subsequent
unfair labor practices (threatening to close the warehouse
before letting the Union in, and promising strikers that
their wages would be increased $20 to $30 a week, to
match the increased wages paid strike replacements)
being "designed to induce employees to abandon their
support for the Union, demonstrated a rejection of the
collective-bargaining principle and give rise to the
inference that its initial refusal to bargain was not in good
faith." Bryant Chucking Grinder Company, 160 NLRB
1526,1530.
The Company further argues that there was no
"manifestation of company policy that under no
circumstances would the company ever deal with the
union," and that a "decision necessitated a fuller review of
the facts." However, in making this argument, the
Company ignores the credited and undisputed evidence
(elicited by its own counsel upon cross-examining Union
Representative Barresi) that Warehouse Manager Alvin
rejected the bargaining request by advising the Union that
"the office in Georgia had said that the Company did not
recognize any union, and let them strike." This response
on its face was a flat rejection, defying the Union to carry
out its threatened recognition strike. Moreover, even
assuming that the Company was merely seeking more time
to review the matter, its subsequent conduct indicated no
interest in determining its bargaining obligation.
I therefore find, in light of all the relevant facts of the
case, that since May 2 the Company has in bad faith
refused to recognize and bargain with the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Disregarding the initial obligation to recognize the
Union, the Company further argues that "to allow a union
to secure bargaining rights where, as here, the union by its
acts of interference, restraint and coercion deprive the
employees of the opportunity of a free election is to pervert
and frustrate the intent of the act." To that end, the
Company attempted at the hearing to litigate asserted
strike misconduct. The argument is a mere afterthought.
There is no allegation of union misconduct occurring
before the Company gave its reply that it did not recognize
any union, "let them strike," nor of any misconduct
directed toward employee Reid, the fourth card signer,
before he joined the strike after an absence from work and
bagan picketing on May 3. Furthermore, the Company's
attempts to litigate the matter in this proceeding were
misguided. The alleged 8(b)(1)(A) violations presumably
had been remedied by a settlement agreement, in a
separate case, and have no materiality on the issue of the
Company's refusal to bargain in this case. Much of the
proffered evidence in the Company's offers of proof was
clearly inadmissible as hearsay. However, I agree with the
General Counsel that even assuming its admissibility, all
of it taken together would not have been of such gravity as
to warrant withholding a remedial order. United Mineral &
Chemical Corporation, 155 NLRB 1390.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening to close down the warehouse before
letting in the Union and by promising strikers a wage
increase if they would abandon the strike , the Company
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. All warehouse employees at the Company ' s Garden
City, New York, warehouse , excluding office clerical
employees , salesmen , guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act , constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
3. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
which represented a majority of its warehouse employees,
the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be
MEL CROAN MOTORS
ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and from
any like or related invasion of its employees' Section 7
rights, and to take affirmative action, which I find
necessary to remedy and to remove the effect of the unfair
labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions of the entire record, I recommend pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, issuance of the following:
ORDER
Respondent, World Carpets of New York, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Allied Trades Union, Local
No. 18, National Federation of Independent Unions, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All warehouse employees at the Comnany's Garden
City, New York, warehouse, excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Threatening to close down its warehouse in reprisal
for its employees' union activities.
(c) Promising wage increases to induce employees to
abandon their support of a union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached.
(b) Post at its warehouse in Garden City, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies
of such notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.3
2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
I In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the
Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
601
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL bargain upon request with Allied Trades
Union, Local No. 18, National Federation of
Independent Unions, as the exclusive representative
of our warehouse employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close
warehouse before letting in the Union.
down our
WE WILL NOT promise our employees wage
increases if they abandon their support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' union
activities.
WORLD CARPETS OF NEW
YORK, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting , and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 16 Court Street,
Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone
596-5386.
Mel Croan Motors, Inc. and Robert A. Ferstl
and Jesse Frields. Cases 23-CA-2360 and
2360-2.
March 27,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On December 2, 1966, Trial Examiner Samuel
Ross issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
other unfair labor practices and recommended the
dismissal of such allegations. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
163 NLRB No. 77